REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1716 OF 2004

CSIR & Ors.

… Appellants

Versus

Ramesh Chandra Agrawal & Anr.

… Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1717, 1718, 1719, 1720, 1721, 1722, 1723 AND

1724 OF 2004

J U D G M E N T

S.B. Sinha, J.

1.

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 and Others [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

2

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 and Others [(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

regularization 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 regularized 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 :

“Considering therefore, the conspectus of the case

in the background of the foregoing discussions

and also keeping in view the principles of equity

and justice while we reject the reliefs prayed for

by the applicant, we simultaneously order as

below :

i)

The applicant shall continue to be paid at the existing

rate until she is absorbed in one of the Scientific posts

3

under the CSIR and her services may be utilized 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

inclu