INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Vs. PREM DUREJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter had been placed in the prioritized category of 'Senior Citizens' at the asking of the respondent No.7. However, when the matter is called out, nobody is present on behalf of the respondents and it is only the counsel for the petitioner who is present before us and who has argued this matter. We have, therefore, heard this matter in the absence of the respondents. 2

(2.) The petitioner is the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) which falls within the Ministry of Agriculture. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.05.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 2348/2007. The main issue involved in this case is whether the scientists working under the ICAR and particularly with the IARI (Indian Agricultural Research Institute) can be given the benefit of the Government of India letter dated 23.03.2007 which had been issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, whereby the age of superannuation of the centrally funded institutions in higher and technical education falling under the said Ministry of Human Resource Development was increased from 62 to 65 years.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the Original Application filed on behalf of the respondents and in directing that the age of superannuation be increased from 62 to 65 years even in respect of the scientists working under the ICAR and with the IARI. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is two-fold. In the first instance, the learned counsel submitted that the Government of India letter dated 23.03.2007 as also the clarificatory letter dated 19.04.2007, make it abundantly clear that it applies only to the centrally funded institutions in higher and technical education falling under the Ministry of Human Resource Development. It does not apply to the ICAR or the IARI, which fall under the Ministry of Agriculture. He also submitted that the matter had been considered by the ICAR and the ICAR had issued a circular dated 22.06.2007 specifically rejecting the representation of several scientists within the fold of the ICAR for increasing the age of superannuation from 62 years to 65 years. Secondly, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in any event, the scientists working with the ICAR and/ or the IARI were not in regular teaching positions, which was the essential requirement for the benefit being granted under the said Government of India letter dated 23.03.2007, as clarified by the letter dated 19.04.2007.