LexDIR., CENT. MARINE FISHERIES RES INST. & ORS. versus A. KANAKKAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 552 A DIR., CENT. MARINE FISHERIES RES INST. & ORS. v. -t A. KANAKKAN & ORS. Civil Appeal No. 5236 of 2008 / . B MAY 5, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Service Law - Pay - Parity in - Claim of - Original application dismissed by Central Administrative Tribunal as . p_arred by time - In another case similarly situated employees I- c granted such pay scale by Supreme Court - On the basis of I- · the judgment of Supreme Court, the claimants granted pay- -- scale as claimed by Office Order -- Subsequently Office order withdrawn finding the same having been issued without approval of competent authority - Representation rejected D distinguishing their case from the other case and on the ground that the plea was barred having been rejected earlier by • Tribunal - Fresh application before Tribunal allowed - Order • confirmed by High Court - On appeal, held: Subsequent claim was not barred by res judicata having been raised on E fresh cause of action - Withholding of benefit on a technical ground of approval, would be harsh in view of the facts that claimants are only four (two of them since retired}, that their claim was found to be justified by the authority concerned; and that they were granted the benefit for more than two years. :> F . _ CJ\IJ~APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5236 of 2008 From the Judgement and Order dated 07 .04.2008 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W .. P. (C) No. 9674 of 2008(s). G A Sharan, ASG, L.B. Gaur, Neeraj D. Gaur, for the Appellant. ) Mathai M. Paikeday, Shishir Pinaki (for Sanjay Jain), with ... him for the Respondent. H 552 ·• -t . DIR., CENT. MARINE FISHERIES RES INST. & ORS. V. 553 A. KANAKKAN & ORS. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by - S.B. SINHA, J. 1 .. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) is a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is A. an apex Agricultural Scientific Research Organisation. It has a B network of Research Institutes/ National Bureau, National Research Centres and Project Directorates. It has 47 Research ; , Institutes, 5 National Bureau, 26 National Research Centres, ··' 10 Project Directorates, 594 Krishi Vigyan Kendras·and 73All !ndia Co-ordinated Research Projects. 2. First Appellant herein is the Director, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute being affiliated to ICAR. Respondents herein·, who are four in number, were appointed c in the post of 'Computers' under a functional group known as 'Laboratory Technician' (in the scale of pay of Rs.330-560). First D respondent was appointed on 1.3.1972, second respondent was appointed on 10.2.1975 and the third respondent was · appointed on 23.4.1976. 3. Indisputably ICAR, despite r.ecommendations of the Third Pay Revision Commission, granted a scale of pay of E Rs.425-600/-. We may, however, notice that. the contention of the appellant in this connection is that the pre-revised scale of pay for the· holders of the post of Computer was Rs.160-300/-. The said scale qt pay was revised to Rs.330-560. They were appointed F as direct recruits as Technical Assistants (T-11-3) in the pay scale of Rs.425-700 on or about ·18.5.1987. The sa.id posts were under the functfonal group "Field/Farm Technician" of Technical Service Rules of ICAR. · Relying on or on the basis of the decision of the Andhra G Pradesh High Court, respondents herein filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal in 1988. The said application was dismissed opining that they were not entitled thereto as the classification of two categories was not unjust. It was furthermore held : H A B c 554 - SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R. "I am of the view that the application in respect of the relief sought in this case for the period they were when they were made Technical Assistant is hopelessly belated. The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court does not give them any right to make this claim because they have ., .ceased to be Computer long back. There cannot be a · retrospective revival of a grievance which was not felt when the alleged discrimination was in force: That judgment . could have helped them if on the date they filed this application they were Computers and suffered such grievance." 4. It has not been denied or disputed that the said matter was not carried forward further. It, however, appears that the Central A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.