SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha, Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
CSIR & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Ramesh Chandra Agrawal & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1716 of 2004 WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 1717, 1718, 1719, 1720, 1721, 1722, 1723 and 1724 of 2004
Decided On : 19-12-2008
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 – Section 14 – Absorption – Appeals are directed against a judgment and order dated 7.5.2003 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow whereby and whereunder an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application as also the office memorandum were set aside and the appellants herein were directed to consider the case of absorption of the respondents in terms of the scheme by considering the question of relaxation with respect to their length of experience in accordance with the provisions of clause 9 thereof – It was furthermore directed that benefit with respect to breaks shall also be given to the petitioners as had been done in the case of other researchers who had been absorbed. – Held, High Court, in our opinion, furthermore committed a serious error insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the respondents did not have any legal right for regularisation having regard to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Umadevi (supra). – Furthermore, it is one thing to say that a public authority may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant relaxation in a particular case but it is another thing to say that the superior court shall direct it to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of relaxation in a particular manner. – Relaxation can be granted only when there exists a provision therefor. – If the provision to grant relaxation is circumscribed by conditions, those conditions must be fulfilled before an order in that regard can be passed. –Paragraph 9 of the scheme although does not contain any limitation in the matter of exercise of power, it was for the authority concerned to lay down a principle as to in which case the power of relaxation should be exercised and in which case it would not be. – If sufficient number of candidates were available who had worked for more than 15 years, keeping in view the requirements of the appellant itself the Director could take a further policy decision that no relaxation shall be granted to an applicant who did not fulfill that criterion. – Ordinarily, the court, it is trite, would not interfere with such discretionary power in exercise of its jurisdiction of judicial review. – Impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly – Appeals Allowed
JUDGMENT :
S.B. Sinha, J.
These appeals are directed against a judgment and order dated 7.5.2003 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow whereby and whereunder an order dated 22.12.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 151 of 1995 as also the office memorandum dated 22.12.2000 were set aside and the appellants herein were directed to consider the case of absorption of the respondents in terms of the scheme by considering the question of relaxation with respect to their length of experience in accordance with the provisions of clause 9 thereof. It was furthermore directed that benefit with respect to breaks shall also be given to the petitioners as had been done in the case of other researchers who had been absorbed.
2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.
Appellant is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It has laboratories situated in different parts of the country. For carrying out research works, it employs qualified persons in the post of Junior Research Fellows, Senior Research Fellows, Junior Research Associates and Senior Research Associates. Appointments for carrying out researches are also made on the basis of a scheme known as 'Quick Hire Scheme'. Research works are also carried out at the instance of the outsiders.
3. Appellant No. 1 was held to be not State by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India [AIR 1975 SC 1329]. It is only at a much later date, inter alia, having regard to the fact that the Central Government issued notification in terms of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 that the service disputes may be adjudicated upon by the Central Administrative Tribunal. A Seven-Judge Bench of this Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, [(2002)5 SCC 111] overruled Sabhajit Tewary (supra)
4. One Dr. Pratibha Mishra was working with the appellant. She was not absorbed in the services. She prayed for her appointment in the regular cadre of CSIR in the post of Scientist B. She had also prayed for regularisation of her services. As her prayers in that behalf were rejected, she filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. By reason of a judgment and order dated 25.9.1996, the Tribunal while lamenting that the services of Dr. Mishra had not been regularised despite the fact that she had worked for 15 years, directed the appellant to formulate a scheme for absorption of scientific researchers at suitable levels, stating :
(i) The applicant shall continue to be paid at the existing rate until she is absorbed in one of the Scientific posts under the CSIR and her services may be utilised by the respondents during this period in an appropriate manner.
(ii) The case of the applicant shall be considered for appointment as Scientist in an existing or future vacancy, if necessary by granting age relaxation, as per CSIR Service Rules.
(iii) The respondents shall formulate a scheme for absorption of scientific researchers at suitable levels in respect of those who have put in long years of research particularly those with 15 years or more.
Or in the alternative the respondents may suitably amend CSIR Service Rules, 1994 so as to include a provision for absorption of Scientific Researchers at suitable levels in respect of those who have put in long years of research work, particularly, 15 years or more. Modifications to be made in the Service Rules may provide for grant of weightage as may be considered appropriate to the period of research work already put in, especially for purposes of relaxation in age and qualifications. Provisions of
D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI)
Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Trivandrum and Others v. S. Kuttan Pillai and Others
Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Food Corporation of India v. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries
Jitendra Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Another
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Sajal Kumar Roy and Others
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology
Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors.
Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector & ETIO and Others
Union of India & Ors. v. Lieut (Mrs.) E. Iacats
Union of India and Others v. R.N. Hegde and Others
University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary and Others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.