UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SANTIRAM GHOSH AND ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 754 · Decided: 02-11-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
SANTIRAM GHOSH AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 2, 1988 
[MURARI MORON DUTT ANDS. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
Civil Services: Botanical Survey of India-Scientific Assistants- . 
Classification and pay scales-Fixation of_:_Scientific Assistants Level I 
and Scientific Assistants Level-II-Division in grad~Whether valid. 
The respondents were working as Scientific Assistants in the office 
C: 
of the Botanical Survey of India in the scale of Rs. 210-425. The Third 
Central Pa_y Commission had considered the cases of the Scientific 
Assistants generally and had recommended different levels of scale of 
pay for them depending upon their education and job content. On the 
basis of the Pay Commission recommendation, the Scientific Assistants 
II> in the office of the Botanical Survey of India were allocated Scientific 
Assistants Level II pay-scale with effect from l.J.1973. The respon· 
dents, on the other hand, claimed the scale of Rs.550·900 recommended 
by the Pay Commission for Level I posts, which scale was also recom• 
mended by the Committee of the Joint Consultative Machinery. The 
Government referred the matter to a Board of Arbitrators to consider 
whether the Scientific Assistants of the Botanical Survey of India were 
IE 
entitled to the revised scale of Rs.550·900. The Board, however, recom· 
mended two levels of scale of pay, as had been done by the Pay 
Commission. 
Feeling aggrieved by the Award of the Board, the respondents 
F filed a writ petition which was transferred by the Calcutta High Court 
to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta. The Tribunal came 
to the finding that in recommending two levels of scale of pay the Board 
of Arbitrators had travelled beyond the terms of reference. Accord· 
ingly, the Tribunal set aside the Award, allowed the writ petition and 
accorded to the respondents the benefit of the scale of pay of Rs.550· 
G 900. 
Dismissing the appeal, it was, 
HELD: (I) The terms of reference of the Board of A.rbitrators 
-H was very clear and specific. Under the terms of reference there was no scope 
754 
• 
• 
U.0.1. v. SANTIRAM GHOSH 
755 
for prescribing two levels of scale. It was therefore apparent that the 
A 
Boarjl had acted beyond the terms of reference, and its award was 
illegal and not binding upon the parties. [758G-H; 759AJ 
(2) The Pay Commission had suggested two levels on the basis of 
nature of scientific work and the qualifications required therefor, the 
B 
higher grade requiring a post-graduate education and calling for some 
degree of originality and capacity for independent '!Ork. At the same 
time, the Pay Commission had observed that before dividing the grade of 
Scientific Assistants into two levels, the job content of the post should be 
taken into account. [7590; 760B-C] 
(3)The two levels could be brought into existence if the nature of 
work which was being performed by the scientific Assistants of the 
Botanical Survey of India called for some degree of originality and 
carrying out of Independent work and investigation, which was the 
guiding factor for such a division. [759F-G] 
( 4) It has been found by the Tribunal that the Scientific Assis-
tants of the Botanical Survey of India were not expected to exhibit 
any originality or capacity for doing any Independent work and that 
c 
D 
the job contents of the existing Scientific Assistants were similar to 
those of Level-II Scientific Assistants recommended by the Pay 
E 
Commission. [760FJ 
(5) As the job content did not require the qualifications as pre-
scribed by the Commission for the Level-I Scientific Assistants, it would 
not be prudent to divide the post of Scientific Assistant into Level-I and 
Level-II. At the same time, the existing Scientific Assistants should not 
F 
be deprived of the pay-scale of Rs.550-900. The appellants may give 
effect to the recommendations of the Pay Commission with regard to the 
future recruitments after framing rules in that regard. [760G-H; 761B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6 of 
1988. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.3.1987 of the Calcutta 
High Court in T.A. No. 516 of 1986. 
D.N. Diwedi, A.K. Srivastava, P. Parmeswaran and C.V. Subba 
~~~~~-· 
H 
756 
SIJPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988) Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
P.P. Rao and Amlan Ghosh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DUTT, J. This appeal by special leave preferred by the Union of 
~ India and Others is directed against the judgment of the Central

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