LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/indian-council-of-agricultural-research-through-the-director-general-and-anr-vs-rajinder-singh-and-o-20240822/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Indian Council of Agricultural Research Through the Director General and Anr. vs Rajinder Singh and Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
22 August 2024
Case No.
Civil Appeal Nos. 97-98 of 2012
Result
Allowed
Bench
J.K. Maheshwari, Rajesh Bindal
Citation
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 507 : 2024 INSC 622
Acts & Sections
Societies Registration Act, 1860 Agricultural Research Service Study Leave… Constitution
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 8 S.C.R. 507 : 2024 INSC 622
Issue for consideration
Employees working on the technical side in the Agricultural Research Service, if entitled to two advance increments given to the Scientists in Agricultural Research Service on acquiring Ph.D. degree in their service career.
Headnote

Service Law – Incentives – Grant of two advance increments on acquiring Ph.D. degree to Scientists in Agricultural Research Service – Employees working on the technical side in the Agricultural Research Service seeking the same benefit – Allowed by the tribunal and the High Court – Correctness: Held: Benefit of two advance increments for acquiring Ph.D. qualification was part of the pay package of the Scientists – Similar benefit was not extended to the technical personnel – For technical personnel, the appellants had adopted the revised scales as recommended by the Government of India for Central Government employees – Merely because Study Leave Regulations, 1991 were extended to technical personnel, would not entitle them to other benefits which are available to the scientists – Merely after having Ph.D. qualification, the technical personnel would not become eligible for grant of two advance increments when the same has not been recommended for them – In any institution incentives may be given to a particular category of employees to get higher qualifications during service, considering their job requirements – Merely because different set of employees, who may be working in aid but governed by different set of rules and having different duties to discharge also obtain that qualification, would not entitle them to the benefits which were extended to different set of employees by the competent authority – Art. 14 would not have any application – Tribunal and High Court erred by equating technical personnel and scientists and granting respondents advance increments to which they are not entitled to – Additional qualification merely makes them eligible for the higher post in the different cadre and not to grant them benefits, attached to the higher post in a different cadre – Impugned orders passed by the High Court and the tribunal set aside. [Paras 9, 10, 10.1, 10.2, 11]

Keywords: Incentives · Two advance increments on acquiring Ph.D. degree · Scientists in Agricultural Research Service · Employees on the technical side in the Agricultural Research Service

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 21.07.2010 passed by the High Court1 in Writ Petition2 filed against the order dated High Court of Delhi W.P.(C) Nos. 3364-65/2004 18.07.20033 passed by the Tribunal4. The Tribunal had allowed the application filed by the respondents, extending them the benefit of the scheme5 dated 27.02.1999 in terms of which a scientist was eligible for two advance increments as and when he acquires a Ph.D. degree in his service career. 2. Briefly the facts as are available on record are that the appellant No.1-Indian Council
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →