JUDGMENT

D.P. Wadhwa, J.-The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated May 24, 1994 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Lucknow Bench) CAT for short). The respondent, a Scientist, had filed Original Application (OA No. 788 of 1993) seeking various reliefs. His petition was allowed by the CAT giving the following directions :-

"Accordingly, we hereby quash the Office Memorandum dated 8.9.93 (Annexure 11 to the petition). As regards Office Memorandum dated 5.6.92 we hold that the respondents are not bound to accept the recommendations of the Selection Committee as regards fixing the consolidated salary of the petitioner as Rs. 3400/- and we deem it just and proper to direct and do hereby direct that the consolidated salary payable to the petitioner shall be nothing less than Rs. 3737/- which the petitioner was getting as a Pool Officer. The respondents are further directed to pay to the petitioner accordingly the entire arrears of salary for the period commencing from 1.8.91 till his re-engagement as Fellow Scientist and to continue to pay the revised pay scale as shown in the table of the scale issued by the CSIR vide its Office Memorandum dated 3.8.92 (Annexure R-11 to the rejoinder). The respondents are also directed to put the petitioner on duty as Scientist Fellow as if the petitioner was not turned out on the basis of time limit and to regularise the services of the petitioner taking into account his full length of service rendered for CSIR as well as for CDRI with continuity of service and the seniority."

2. There are three appellants. First appellant is the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act controlled by the Central Government. Second respondent is the Director of Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow (CDRI), a body under the control of CSIR. Third respondent is the Senior Controller of Administration in the CDRI. At the outset it was pointed by Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned Attorney General that in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India and others1, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that CSIR is not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. However, whether CSIR is authority or not is not relevant for the purpose of decision of this appeal.

3. When the appellant sought leave to appeal to this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution from the judgment of the CAT this Court issued notice to the respondent limiting the notice as under :

"The only grievance made by learned counsel for the petitioners is against the direction given by the Tribunal to absorb and regularise the respondent even though his appointment was merely as a Pool Officer, after expiry of the period of tenure of three years from the date of his appointment.

Issue notice returnable on 17.2.95 limited to this question stating that the matter would be finally disposed of at this stage.

Ms. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj, learned counsel, entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. No further notice is therefore necessary.

Meanwhile, the operation of the Tribunal s order to this extent alone shall remain stayed."

Subsequently, leave to appeal was, however, granted.

2A. As to how OA came to be filed by the respondent resulting in the impugned judgment by the CAT we may refer to certain facts.

3. A Scientists Pool Scheme was formulated by the Central Government by Resolution dated October 14, 1958. It was stated that Government of India had under consideration the question of establishing a Pool for temporary placement of well qualified Indian scientists and technologists returning from abroad until they are absorbed in suitable posts on more or less permanent basis. The Scheme was devised in consultation with CSIR. CSIR was authorised to take all steps necessary for the implementation of the Scheme. Some of the salient features of the Scheme are as under :-

"1. A Pool shall be constituted in the manner provided hereafter for a temporary placement of well-qu