L.C.A.R. versus SATISH KUMAR AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 557 · Decided: 31-03-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

l.C.A.R. 
A 
v. 
SATJSH KUMAR AND ANR. 
MARCH 31, 1998 
[S.C. AGRAWAL, D.P. WADHWA AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Pay Scale-Retrospective revision, on basis of UGC pay scale modi/Ying 
whole scheme-Held, permissible. 
C 
Pay Scale-Conditional option excercised for higher pay scale-Held, 
not permissible. 
Service Rules-Retrospective operation-Held, not permissible by mere 
executive instructions. 
Service Rules-Not statutory rules-Held, can be amended by a 
resolution, no legislation under Article 309 of Constitution of India required. 
Constitution of India-Articles I 4 & I 6-Retrospective revision of pay 
D 
scale-Applied without any discrimination-Held, not violative. 
E 
The appellant-society introduced for its employees Agriculture 
Research Service w.e.f. October 1, 1975. The respondent was appointed as 
scientist in S-1 in pay scale of Rs. 700-1300 in 1982. The next grade of 
Scientific S-11 in pay scale of Rs. 1100-1600 became due to him in 1987 on 
completion if five years under the five yearly assessment. The respondent F 
was asked to submit his five yearly as~essment which he did, but no action 
was taken thereon. The appellant by a circular conveyed its decision to revise 
the pay scales of Scientists retrospectively w.e.f. January 1, 1986 to bring 
them at per with the UGC pay scales. The scientists made representation 
against the implementation of the UGC pay package. The appellant issued G 
orders revising the pay scale of the scientists in various i;rades w.e.f. January 
1, 1986. The appellant also mentioned that anomalies, hardships and doubts, 
if any, in the implementation of the revised pay scales be brought to its notice 
for clarification. The scheme of assessment, recruitment etc. stood modified 
after adoption of UGC pay package and comprehensive instructions were to 
follow. The appellant further issued modified Career Advancement Scheme H 
557 
558 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1998] 2 S.C.R. 
A with retrospective effect from January I, 1986 and a new procedure was 
prescribed for promotion. The respondent opted for the new scheme with a 
rider that the option was subject to clarification in regard to his career 
advancement after consideration of the five-yearly assessment as was in 
vogue during the year 1987. He was placed in the next higher grade of 
B Scientist (Senior Scale) under the new Career Advancement Scheme. He 
claimed promotion on the basis of five-yearly assessment when he completed 
the service of five years in the year 1987. He also made a representation 
before the appellant-council but was unsuccessful. 
The respondent filed a petition before the Central Administrative 
C Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the appellant to consider the case of the 
respondent for promotion to the higher grade of Scientist (Senior Scale). 
Aggrieved the appellant appealed to this Court contending that no 
retrospectivity was involved in the instance case, as the earlier scheme was 
discontinued; no visited right of promotion accured in favour of respondent 
D under the earlier scheme, that there could not be two different dates, i.e., one 
for the revision of pay scales and other for the purpose of assessment for 
promotion; that the respondent had accepted revision of pay scales given 
under the new Career Advancement Scheme and so he could not claim 
consideration under the earlier scheme; that there could not be two schemes 
E of promotion operating during the same period, that no person had a right 
to be promoted, and that the UGC system of promotion, recruitment, pay 
package etc. was adopted in toto without any alteration and the judgment of 
the Tribunal amounted to· altering the same. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Tribunal, this 
F Court 
HELD : I. The Appellant-Council had revised its service rules 
retrospectively on the basis of the UGC pay package. Respoudent oecame due 
for grant of higher pay scale under the old five-yearly scheme, when the new 
G scheme was brought into force. The appellant council asked the scientists 
working under it to exercise their option and also report any hardship or 
anomalies for clarification. The respondent opted for the new scheme with 
a rider the that he was also entitled to a higher pay scale under the old 
"", 
scheme. He could not give such a conditional option under the amended 
rules, which were not unreasonable, arbitrary of irrational or violative of 
H Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 1563

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.