- 1 - WP No. 3935 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4963 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 3935 OF 2021 (S-CAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 4963 OF 2021 (S-CAT) IN WP NO. 3935/2021 BETWEEN: 1. CENTRAL SILK BOARD (ESTABLISHED BY THE MINISTRY OF TEXTILE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA), CSB, COMPLEX, BTM LAYOUT, MADIWALA, BANGLAORE-560068, REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (LAW). 2. THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF MINISTRY OF TEXTILE, UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI -110001. 3. THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE, CGSC) AND: DR. G S GEETHA W/O. P NATARAJA, R/AT NO.39, BLOCK 22, 1ST MAIN ROAD, Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - WP No. 3935 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4963 of 2021 MADHUVANA LO, SRIRAMPURA 2ND STAGE, MYSORE - 570023. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M ARUNA SHYAM, SR. ADV. FOR SMT. SHILPA S GOGI, ADV. FOR R1) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.A.NO.170/1387/2018 ON THE FILE OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2019 PASSED IN O.A.NO.170/1387/2018 ON THE FILE OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH AND DISMISS THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN O.A.NO.170/1387/2018 ANNEXURE-A. IN WP NO. 4963/2021 BETWEEN: 1. CENTRAL SILK BOARD CSB COMPLEX 100 FEET ROAD BMT LAYOUT, MADIWALA BENGALURU-560068. 2. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF TEXTILES UDYOG BHAVAN MAULANA AZAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE, CGSC) AND: DR. KUMARESAN P S/O PERIASWAMY S AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.4 SRI SAI KRUPA APARTMENTS NO.9, 36TH MAIN, 4TH A CROSS, BTM 1ST STAGE BENGALURU-560068. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DESHRAJ, ADV. FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT) - 3 - WP No. 3935 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4963 of 2021 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.A.NO.170/1282/2018 ON THE FILE OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH AND SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 05.12.2019 PASSED IN O.A.NO.170/1282/2018 BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, AND DISMISS THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN OA.NO.170/1282/2018 ANNEXURE-A. THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 18.03.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The Central Silk Board and Union of India are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru (For short, ‘CAT’), dated 27.08.2019 in O.A.No.170/1387/2018 and order dated 05.12.2019 in O.A.No.170/01282/2018 allowing the respondent’s applications directing to treat the respondent who was applicant before the CAT as eligible to be treated as Scientist and eligible for Flexible Complementary Scheme (for short, ‘FCS’) with other consequences. - 4 - WP No. 3935 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4963 of 2021 2. Brief facts leading to the impugned orders are that, the respondent in W.P.No.3935/2021 possesses the qualification of B.A., with Master’s Degree in Social Works and Ph.D (Sociology). The respondent was appointed as Senior Research Assistant (Social Science). By Office Memorandum dated 10.09.1991, the respondent was appointed as Senior Research Assistant (Social Sciences) and was given promotion to the next higher cadre of Scientist-C from Scientist-B in the pay scale of Rs.10,000/- to 15,000/- w.e.f. 03.09.2006, the date on which she completed five years of service as Scientist-B by order dated 28.04.2007 (Annexure-R10). Subsequently, vide intimation dated 08.07.2014 (Annexure-A14), the respondent was informed that she was not entitled for in- situ promotion under FCS on the ground that the CSB officials with Social Science background will not fall within the ambit of Science and Technology and FCS is available only to scientists and engineers with specific qualification. - 5 - WP No. 3935 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4963 of 2021 3. In W.P.No.4963/2021, the respondent was appointed as Assistant Director (Sericulture Management) in the year 1991 and the respondent possesses the qualification of B.Sc., (Agriculture) Masters of Business Management and Ph.D., in Economics. This respondent was also extended in-situ promotion to the post of Scientist-C w.e.f. 30.08.2006 by order dated 28.04.2007 and to the post of Scientist -D w.e.f. 01.07.2009 by order dated 09.07.2009 in terms of the FCS. 4. The Petitioner No.2 - Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievances and Pensions, by OM dated 09.11.1998, introduced the FCS for scientists in various scientific departments on the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission. The FCS scheme was made applicable only to scientists and technologists holding scientific posts in scientific and technology departments and who are engaged in scientific activities and services. The OM also laid down the criteria for identifying the institutions and organizations as scientific and technological institutions, as well as for defining scientific activities and services. The - 6 - WP No. 3935 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4963 of 2021 above OM also defines scientific activities and services, which reads as follows: "Criteria for identifying Institutions/Organisations as Scientific and Technical Institutions and definition of Activities and Services, Scientists & Engineers and Scientific Posts: i) The institutions referred to as S & T would be characterized by pursuit of excellence; ii) They should be engaged in research, design, development or programme implementation (including review, analysis, promotion and aspects of science policy, etc.) which would cover a broad spectrum of pure and applied research but the essential feature would be innovative character and spirit of enquiry that permeates their overall functioning. iii) The scientific culture is characterized by a few salient aspects, namely the persons involved are highly qualified and skilled technical personnel, involved in creative and innovative activity, they are willing to be judged on the basis of merit and competence rather than on the basis of seniority and a hierarchical structure. iv) The criteria could cover the aims and objectives of the institution/organization, qualifications of the personnel qualitative requirements for performance of various types of activities, etc,. Further, it also defined scientists and engineers and also scientific post which reads as follows: “Scientists and Engineers: persons, (a) who possess academic qualification of atleast Masters Degree in Natural/Agricultural Sciences - 7 - WP No. 3935 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4963 of 2021 or Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering/Technology/medicine; and (b) working in those capacities, use or create scientific knowledge, and engineering and technological training who are engaged in professional work on S & T activities, high level administrators and personnel who plan, direct or coordinate the execution of S & T activities.” Thereafter, on the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission, FCS was modified under OM dated 10.09.2010. In terms of the modified FCS, scientific activities and services were defined. It also defined scientific posts as well as scientists and engineers, which reads as follows: “SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL AITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING INSTITUTIONS AS SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL. • The institutions referred to as S & T would be characterized by pursuit of the excellence; • They should be involved in creating new scientific knowledge of innovative engineering, technological of medical techniques or which predominantly involved in professional research and development work. • The scientific culture is characterized by a few salient aspects, namely the persons involved are highly qualified and skilled technical personnel, involved in creative and innovative activity, they are willing to be judged based on the basis of - 8 - WP No. 3935 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4963 of 2021 merit and competence rather than on the basis of seniority and a hierarchical structure; • The criteria could cover the aims and objectives of the institution/organization, qualifications of the personnel, qualitative requirements for performance of various types of activities etc. Scientific Activities and Services (a) Fundamental/basic research: Original investigation to gain new scientific knowledge, not necessarily directed towards any specific practical aim or application; Working in scientific laboratories/ institutes, period spent on doctoral/post doctoral degrees in basic research after joining an organization, etc. would constitute field experience for the purpose of FCS. (b) Applied Research: Original investigation to gain new scientific or technical knowledge directed towards a specific practical aim or objective: Working in scientific laboratories/ institutes, period spent on doctoral/ post doctoral degrees in applied research after joining an organization etc. would constitute field experience for the purpose of FCS. (c) Experimental Development: Application of scientific knowledge directed towards producing new or substantially improved materials, devices, products, processes, systems or services; ‘field experience’ would depend on the work profile of the Department. The defining factor would be that the work is not of routine use of scientific knowledge but involves application of scientific knowledge for creation of new/innovative systems, practices, models. (d) S&T activities which are directly linked to R & D in terms of promoting the scientific activities and services. Working in R & D laboratories and - 9 - WP No. 3935 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4963 of 2021 institutions, scientific projects being operated in mission mode, working on international collaboration R & D projects etc. would constitute the filed experience under FCS. Scientific Post Is the one, the incumbent of which is a ‘Scientist or Engineer’ defined as below in a scientific institution/organization declared as ‘Scientific Department’ as defined above and is engaged in creating new scientific knowledge or innovative engineering, technological or medical techniques or which is involved predominantly in professional research work and development. Scientists and Engineers a. Who possess academic qualification of at least Mater’s degree in natural/Agricultural Sciences of Bachelor’s degree in Engineering/Technology/ Medicine; and b. Hold scientific posts as defined above.” 5. The Central Silk Board, the first petitioner herein adopted and implemented the FCS under OM dated 30.08.2006. As on the said date, there was no separate Recruitment Rules for scientists and administrative staff. Based on the OMs existing then, the respective respondents in both the petitions as stated above, were extended the FCS and were promoted to the post of Scientist-C and Scientist-D. - 10 - WP No. 3935 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4963 of 2021 6. The Ministry of Textiles, under communication dated 17.04.2012 (Annexure-R12), issued clarification stating that CSB Scientists with Statistics, Social Science and MBA background will not fall within the ambit of Science and Technology. Accordingly, based on the clarification, the respondents were issued with intimation that CSB officials with Social Science background will not fall within the ambit of Science and Technology and that the respondent is not eligible for grant of in-situ promotion under FCS. Much thereafter, the petitioner approached the CAT in the above stated way with a prayer to direct the respondents i.e. petitioners herein to consider extending the benefits under the FCS or equivalent scheme with all consequential benefits as has been extended to other similarly situated persons in other Government organizations and release a fresh combined seniority list of all the scientists working in Central Silk Board. The CAT under impugned orders allowed the OAs and directed the petitioners herein to treat the respondents as scientists and held that they are eligible for FCS and other - 11 - WP No. 3935 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4963 of 2021 consequential benefits. Questioning the orders of the CAT, petitioners are before this Court in these two writ petitions. 7. Heard Sri. Madhukar M Deshpande, learned Central Government Counsel for petitioners and learned Senior Counsel Sri M Aruna Shyam for Smt. Shilpa S Gogi, learned advocate for respondent in WP No. 3935/2021 and Sri. Deshraj, learned counsel for respondent in WP No. 4963/2021. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 8. Learned counsel Sri. Madhukar M Deshpande appearing for petitioners in both the petitions would submit that the CAT proceeded to define the word “scientist” instead of deciding whether the respondents would fall within the FCS and entitled to the benefits. Further, he submits that the respondents cannot claim themselves as scientists as they would not possess the qualification of Master’s Degree in Natural/Agricultural Sciences or Bachelor's Degree in Engineering/Technology /Medicine. It is submitted that the respondents in both the - 12 - WP No. 3935 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4963 of 2021 writ petitions cannot be treated as scientists. They would not possess the minimum qualification prescribed under O.M. dated 10.09.2010. Further, learned counsel would submit that the respondents possess the qualification of MSW and MBA respectively, which would not be the qualification prescribed for scientists. It is pointed out that FCS benefit would be available only to the scientists and the words “scientist” and “scientific institution” is defined under various OMs. Referring to the impugned order passed by the CAT, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the CAT substituted its own definition of scientist and scientific institution contrary to the relevant OMs with regard to FCS. It is submitted that the CAT failed to appreciate whether the respondents with their qualification of MSW and MBA could be categorized as scientists and whether they could be extended benefit of FCS. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petitions. 9. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. M Aruna Shyam and Sri. Deshraj, learned counsel appearing for the - 13 - WP No. 3935 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4963 of 2021 respective respondents vehemently contended that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches, since the writ petitions were filed challenging the impugned order passed by the CAT on 27.08.2019 and 05.12.2019, after more than six months without explaining the cause for delay in filing the writ petitions. Further, learned Senior Counsel would point out that the qualification of MSW would qualify to be treated as ‘science’ since qualification of MSW would include Social Science. He would further submit that the respondents were extended benefit in the year 2006, on verifying their qualification and treating them as scientists. As the benefit of FCS is extended on verification and examination of respondents’ qualification and nature of work carried out by them, subsequently it could not have been withdrawn. Further, it is submitted that the nature of work of the respondents are identical to the work carried on by scientists as they would work in the field of Social Science and Agricultural Science respectively. Therefore, he submits that the respondents were rightly extended the - 14 - WP No. 3935 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4963 of 2021 benefit of FCS. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the points that would arise for consideration are as follows: “i) Whether the respondents could be treated as scientists for the purpose of extending FCS in terms of the relevant OMs? ii) Whether the impugned order of the CAT requires interference?” 11. The answer to the above points would be negative and affirmative for the following reasons: The respondents are initially appointed as Senior Research Assistant, Social Science, with qualification of B.A. with Master’s Degree in Social Works and Ph.D in Sociology and as Assistant Director (Sericulture/ Agriculture Management) with qualification of B.Sc.(Agriculture), Master of Business Management and Ph.D in Economics, respectively. Both of them were extended in-situ promotion to the post of Scientist-C and - 15 - WP No. 3935 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4963 of 2021 Scientist-D respectively by extending the benefit of FCS. The OM dated 09.11.1998 of the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievance and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training (Annexure-A2) modifying the FCS for scientists in various scientific departments in pursuance to recommendation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission makes it clear that FCS as per its original objective be made applicable only to scientists and technologists holding scientific post in scientific and technology departments and who are engaged in scientific activities and services. Subsequently, under OM dated 10.09.2010 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, modifying FCS for scientists based on recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission defined scientific post to mean who possess academic qualifications of at least, Master’s Degree in Natural/Agricultural Sciences or Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering/Technology/medicine and hold scientific post as defined in the said OM. - 16 - WP No. 3935 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4963 of 2021 12. Admittedly, respondent in W.P.No.3935/2021 would possess the qualification of MSW i.e., Master of Social Works, which would not fall within the definition of scientists and engineers as defined under O.M. dated 10.09.2010 (Annexure-R2). Further, respondent in WP No. 4963/2021 possesses the qualification of B.Sc. in Agriculture, MBA and Ph.D in Economics. This qualification also would not fall within the definition of scientists and engineers. Moreover, this respondent does not possess the Master’s Degree in Natural/Agricultural Science. Both the respondents would not possess the Master’s Degree in natural/Agricultural Science or Bachelor's Degree in Engineering/Technology/Medicine. 13. The CAT placed reliance on judgments which were rendered on entirely different facts and orders passed in respect of scientists working in Indian Council of Forest Research and Education. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Council of Agriculture Research vs. - 17 - WP No. 3935 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4963 of 2021 Rajinder Singh and others, reported in 2024, reported in SCC OnLine SC 2137, considered an identical question. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was examining as to whether the technical personnel/staff could seek extension of the benefit extended to the scientists in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The Hon'ble Apex Court considering the definition of ‘scientific’ and ‘technical’ in the Byelaws of the ICAR at paragraphs No. 10, 10.1, 10.2, has held as follows: “10.1 Merely after having Ph.D. qualification, the technical personnel will 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, will not entitle them to the benefits which were extended to different set of employees by the competent authority. In the said sequel of facts, Article 14 of the Constitution of India will not have any application. - 18 - WP No. 3935 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4963 of 2021 10.2 The Tribunal and High Court have erred by equating technical personnel and scientists and granting respondents advance increments to which they are not entitled to. The argument raised by the respondents that after obtaining the Ph.D. qualification, the Technical Staff are entitled to be considered for lateral entry into the scientists is also to be noticed and rejected as the additional qualification merely makes them eligible for the higher post in the different cadre and not to grant them benefits, which are attached to the higher post in a different cadre. Similar is the position regarding Entry 66 in List I to the 7th Schedule attached to the Constitution of India. The contents of the Entries in 7th Schedule only prescribe limits of the powers of the Parliament or the State Legislature to enact laws.” 14. In the present case, the CAT instead of examining whether the respondents with their qualification would fall within the definition of scientist in terms of relevant OMs, i.e., O.M. dated 09.11.1998 (Annexure-A2) as well as O.M. dated 10.09.2010 (Annexure-R2), proceeded to direct the petitioners herein to extend the benefit of FCS to respondents. The CAT also could not have defined word “science” to say that it would mean a - 19 - WP No. 3935 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4963 of 2021 deeper study. The CAT could not have rewritten OMs which extended FCS benefit. 15. The learned Senior Counsel for respondent in W.P.No.3935/2021 and learned counsel for respondent in W.P.No.4963/2021 contended that the writ petitions are liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. The said contention is untenable. The order impugned in W.P.No.3935/2021 is dated 27.08.2019 and the petition was filed on 03.03.2020. Similarly, the order impugned in W.P.No.4963/2021 is dated 05.12.2019 and the petition was filed on 27.05.2021. In response, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that obtaining certified copy and in the process of getting approval and drafting has taken some time to file the petitions during the COVID-19 period. Though no limitation is prescribed to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such invocation shall be made within a reasonable time. In the instant case, filing of these petitions within about 7 months from the date of impugned order passed by the CAT, that too during - 20 - WP No. 3935 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4963 of 2021 COVID-19 period is reasonable. As such, the respondents’ contention stands rejected. 16. For the reasons recorded above, the following: ORDER i) Writ petitions are allowed. ii) The impugned orders dated 27.08.2019 and 05.12.2019 in OA No.170/1387/2-018 and OA No. 170/01282/2018, respectively passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal are hereby set aside. iii) Consequently, both the Applications stand dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC/BSV CT:bms