A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by 3 petitioners. Respondent is National Institute ofhealth and Family Welfare (NIHFW for short ). All 3 petitioners joined NIHFW asmedical Officers w. e. f. 24. 4. 1982, 30. 7. 1986and 16. 10. 1986 respectively. It is thecase of the petitioners that in the year 1989, Memorandum of Settlement wassigned between the Central Government on the one side and representatives ofdoctors on the other side which, interalia, provided for the constitution of highpowered committee to look into all aspects of career mode and cadre restructuringand make proposals with a view to enable service Doctors to take their due placeamong the best of Group-A service of the Central Government and ensure similarityin career prospects among the 4 sub-cadres of Central Health Scheme (CHS forshort ). Committee was formed under the Chairmanship of Sh. R. K. Tikku, Secretary (Coordination) in the Cabinet Secretariat which submitted its report andrecommendations to the Government on 31. 10. 1990. Government implementedthe recommendations of Tikku Committee by issuing office memorandum dated14. 11. 1991. This OM mentions, among others, that Medical Officer be promotedas Senior Medical Officer after completion of four years and Chief Medical Officerafter completion of 6 years service. Para 15 of the OM stipulated that otherdepartments under the Ministry would implement the same mutatis mutandis. On thebasisofthisposition,petitioner No. 1 claims that he became entitled to be promotedas Senior Medical Officer w. e. f. 24. 4. 1986 and Chief Medical officer from 24. 4. 1992subject to recommendations of DPC on seniority-cum-fitness basis. Likewisepetitioner No. 2 became entitled to be promoted as Senior Medical Officer from30. 7. 1990 and Chief Medical Officer from 30. 7. 1996. Petitioner No. 3 becameentitled to be promoted as Senior Medical Officer from 16. 10. 1990 and Chiefmedical Officer from 16. 10. 1996. However the benefits of OM dated 14. 11. 1991were not extended to the petitioners and accordingly they represented. on 4. 5. 1992. Although other organisations implemented the Tikku Committee Report as perdirections of Ministry of Health, NIHFW did not implement the same for long yearsdespite repeated representations. Finally in the 26th Meeting of Governing Body ofnihfw, a decision in this regard was taken which reads as under: "the Governing Body approved to extend the following benefits to the 6medical Officers now in NIHFW. The benefits of in situ promotion frommos to SMOs (RS. Finally in the 26th Meeting of Governing Body ofnihfw, a decision in this regard was taken which reads as under: "the Governing Body approved to extend the following benefits to the 6medical Officers now in NIHFW. The benefits of in situ promotion frommos to SMOs (RS. 3000-4500) and then to CMO (Rs. 3700-5000) after4 years and then 6 years of service respectively can be given to the 6doctors. " ( 2 ) IMPLEMENTING the aforesaid decision, the petitioners were promoted fromthe post of Medical Officer to Senior Medical Officer w. e. f. 28. 3. 1995 i. e. the dateof decision of Governing Body. The petitioners claim that the benefits should beextended from retrospective effect i. e. 14. 11. 1991 when OM for this purpose wasissued by Government implementing the recommendations of the Tikku Committeereport. Against this action of NIHFW their representation was rejected stating thatthe date of implementation will be 28. 3. 1995 i. e. the date of resolution of thegoverning Body. Aggrieved by this decision, present writ petition is filed seekingimplementation of the resolution retrospectively i. e. from 14. 11. 1991. ( 3 ) THE basis on which the petitioners have made the aforesaid claim can besummarised as under: I) Immediately upon the notification of OM dated 14. 11. 1991 and itsimplementation of the same in the Central Health Services Shri M. S. Dayal,secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare vide tetter dated 15. 11. 1991wrote to the participating units and organisations to extend the benefitsmutatis mutandis. II) That again a letter dated 13. 1. 1992 by Shri M. S. Dayal, Secretary,ministry of Health and Family Welfare was sent to the NIHFW stating that"the representatives of the JACSDO in the meetings with the officers of theministry have represented that these decisions have not been implemented,so far, in most of other organisations mentioned in para 15 of the OMreferred to above. I request you to please look into the matter and havethe orders/sanctions. issued in respect of Doctors under your controlexpeditiously. Information about action may also please be sent to me asthis is required to be brought to the notice of the Union Minister of Health andfamily Welfare urgently. " III) That again on. 6. 2. 1992 the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare wrote tothe addresses mentioned therein, which included the respondent No. 1institute and for ready reference the relevant portion of the letter isextracted below:- "3. " III) That again on. 6. 2. 1992 the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare wrote tothe addresses mentioned therein, which included the respondent No. 1institute and for ready reference the relevant portion of the letter isextracted below:- "3. It is also stated that under the number of posts to be elevated to that ofsenior Administrative Grade should be determined strictly with reference tothe functional needs of your department. However, the Chief Medicalofficers grade (Rs. 3700-5000_ should be given in situ basis, subject toseniority-cum-fitness, to the Medical Officers having atleast 10 years ofqualifying service, including at least two years regular service as Seniormedical Officer. " IV) That the service conditions of the petitioners are governed by thenational Institute of Health and Family Welfare, Bye-Laws and as per Bye-Law 42 orders and decisions issued in this regard by the Central Governmentfrom time to time shall apply mutatis mutandis to the employees of theinstitute. Bye-Law 42 makes the following stipulation:- 42. Other conditions of service. In respect of matters not provided for in these Bye-Laws, the rules asapplicable to Central Government servants regarding the general conditionsof service, pay, allowances including travelling and daily allowances, leave,salary, joining time, foreign service terms etc. and orders and decisionsissued in this regard by the Central Government from time to time shallapply mutatis mutandis to the employees of the Institute. V) When the recommendations in all Central Government and otherorganisations including Central Health Services have been implementedw. e. f. 14. 11. 1991, implementation of these very recommendations ofrespondent No. 1 from the date i. e. 28. 3. 1995 is discriminatory and arbitraryand therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, respondents have sought to justify the date of 28. 3. 1995 onthe ground that OM dated 14. 11. 1991 was not automatically applicable to NIHFW. It was for the Governing Body of NIHFW to accept or not to accept the saiddecision. Governing Body approved the same and decided to accept Tikkucommittee Report in its meeting on 28. 3. 1995 only and therefore the decision isimplemented from this date. ( 5 ) THIS Institute is an autonomous body and its employees are not Centralgovernment employees. Therefore, as far as bye-law 42 is concerned it is statedthat since the matter was referred to the Governing Body and has been approvedby it to beeffective from 28. 3. 3. 1995 only and therefore the decision isimplemented from this date. ( 5 ) THIS Institute is an autonomous body and its employees are not Centralgovernment employees. Therefore, as far as bye-law 42 is concerned it is statedthat since the matter was referred to the Governing Body and has been approvedby it to beeffective from 28. 3. 1995, this Bye-law is not applicable. Medicalofficers of this institute do not come under the Cadre of Central Health Servicesand hence Tikku Committee recommendations which were for the Central Healthservices cadre Doctors are not applicable to medical officers of this institute ipsofacto. The Institute received a communication dated 15. 11. 1991 from the Govt. ofindia informing regarding the report of the Committee under the Chairmanship ofr. K. Tikku arid advising the acceptance of the Govt. on some of the recommendationsof the said Committee. Another communication dated 13. 1. 1992 was also received. The Govt. was advising the fact of partial acceptance of the report of the Tikkucommittee to various organisations including the institute so that each organisationcould assess the decision and act within its parameters. By communication dated 9. 9. 1992 the Institute again took up the matter with the Ministry on the basis ofthe recommendations of the said Committee and requested for a decision in thematter. However even after a reminder dated 30. 10. 1992 the Govt. did not acceptthe proposal vide their letter dated 23. 3. 1993. By another communication dated17. 1. 1994 while reiterating that the proposal of the Institute was not found feasibleby the Ministry, the Institute was advised to consider having its own scheme. Itwas agreed to by the Ministry only by its communication dated 24. 3. 1995 andbased on this Institute in its meeting of Governing Body dated 28. 3. 1995implemented the proposal and gave benefits to the petitioners in terms of the sameeffective from 28. 3. 1995. This was approved by the Ministry by its communicationdated 28. 2. 1996. lt will, therefore, be seen that the recommendations of the Tikkucommittee were not binding on the Institute and this was confirmed by theministry in several decisions which based its decisions on the fact that there couldbe no parity between the respective services. Finally, when it was suggested to theinstitute that an independent scheme could be framed the same was doneimmediately and the petitioners have obtained the benefit thereof. Finally, when it was suggested to theinstitute that an independent scheme could be framed the same was doneimmediately and the petitioners have obtained the benefit thereof. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for respondent also relied upon the judgment of Supremecourt in the case of Suryanarayan Sahu and Ors. Vs. Council of Scientific andindustrial Research reported in (1998) 2 SCC 162 : AIR 1998 SC 548 in supportof his submission that being an autonomous body, it had right to adopt therecommendations from a later date. ( 7 ) THIS case is in fact squarely covered by the judgment of Apex Court in thecase of Suryanarayan Sahu (supra ). That was a case regarding implementation ofthe III Pay Commission s recommendations by Council of Scientific and Industrialresearch (CSIR ). CSIR is also a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and Rules and Regulations and By-Laws governing the functioning of CSIR. Theprovisions contained in these Rules and Regulations and Bye-Laws are almost atparimetery with the provisions of the Bye-Laws of NIHFW. Following discussioncontained in para 3 of the aforesaid judgment would amply demonstrate thesame: "para 3 :csir is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Rules and Regulations and Bye-laws govern the functioning of thecsir. Under Rule 29, the affairs of the CSIR shall be administered,directed and controlled, subject to Rules and Regulations and Bye-lawsand orders of the Society, by the Governing Body. We do not have to referto the Rules and Regulations and Bye-laws of the CSIR in details as theseare not incontroversy. Under Bye-law 12, conditions of service of officersand staff of CSIR are governed by the Central Civil Services (Classification,control and Appeals) Rules and the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rulesfor the time being in force. Under Bye-law 14, the scales of payapplicable to all the employees of the society shall not be in excess ofthose prescribed by the Government of India for similar personnel,save in the case of specialists. Under Bye-law 15, in regard to allmatters concerning service conditions of employees of the Society, thefundamental and Supplementary Rules framed by the Government and. such other rules and orders issued by the Government of India from time totime shall apply to the extent applicable to the employees of the Society. Bye-law 14 and 15 of the CSIR framed by the Governing Body are as under: "14. such other rules and orders issued by the Government of India from time totime shall apply to the extent applicable to the employees of the Society. Bye-law 14 and 15 of the CSIR framed by the Governing Body are as under: "14. The scales of pay applicable to all the employees of the Society shall notbe in the excess of those prescribed by the Government of India forsimilar personnel, save in the case of specialists. 15. In regard to all matters concerning service conditions of employees ofthe Society, the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules framed bythe Government of India and such other rules and orders issued by thegovernment of India from time to time shall apply to the extent applicable tothe employees of the Society. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Bye-law, the Governing Bodymay establish and maintain Schemes providing for benefits to employees ofthe Society on Superannuation/retirement. " ( 8 ) THUS in the case of CSIR also, Bye-Law 15 is almost identically worded asbye-Law 42 of NIHFW Bye-Laws. That was the case relating to implementation ofthe recommendations of III Pay Commission which was accepted by Centralgovernment w. e. f. 1. 1. 1973. One of the recommendations of the Pay Commissionrelated to scales of pay of Draftsmen and Senior Draftsmen. Senior Draftsmenwere divided into two groups and given two different pay scales. This division waschallenged and the said challenge was upheld by Supreme Court in the Case of P. Savita and Ors. Vs. UOI and Ors. reported in AIR 1985 SC 1124 . On that basis,government of India issued notification dated 11. 9. 1985 deciding that all thesedraftsman were to be given same pay scale i. e. Rs. 425-700 notionally from 1. 1. 1973 and actually from 1. 9. 1987. The question whether the CSIR, which wasan autonomous body, was bound to follow the same pattern from same date wasnegative and the Court observed as under in para 8: "para 8 : CSIR is an autonomous body. The recommendations of the Pay Commission cannot be made applicable tocsir suo motu. It would be up to the Governing Body of the CSIR toadopt the recommendations of such Pay Commission. The recommendations of the Pay Commission cannot be made applicable tocsir suo motu. It would be up to the Governing Body of the CSIR toadopt the recommendations of such Pay Commission. CSIR by Resolutionshas been adopting the recommendations of the Pay Commissions forformulating the pay scales of different categories of its employees but therecommendations, it was stated, were not adopted in toto and that CSIRadopted a broad pattern of Government of India scale as recommended bythe Third Pay Commission. " ( 9 ) IN that case, the Governing Body had decided to revise the pay scales ofjunior Draftsmen to Rs-330-560 and Senior Draftsmen to Rs-420-700 w. e. f. 1. 5. 1978 and this was upheld by the Supreme Court. Therefore the legal positionwhich emerges is that NIHFW, while accepting the recommendations of Tikkucommittee Report can fix a date other than the date fixed by the Government. Thegovernment accepted the recommendations w. e. f. 14. 11. 1991. The Governingbody of NIHFW also passed Resolution in its 26th meeting dated 28. 3. 1995extending the same benefit to the Medical Officers in NIHFW which includedthe petitioners. ( 10 ) HOWEVER what needs too be determined is, as to whether Governing Body hastaken decision fixing the date of 28. 3. 1995 i. e. the date on which Resolution waspassed for extending the benefit of the nature mentioned above. After thisdecision was taken in the Governing Body meeting dated 28. 3. 1995, the petitionersare given the benefit by the respondents presuming that the date of decision ofgoverning Body i. e. 28. 3. 1995 is the date from which Tikku Committeerecommendations would become effective. Whether this is factually correct? Toascertain this, one may reproduce the decision taken by the Governing Body yetagain: " The Governing Body approved to extend the following benefits to the 6medical Officers now in NIHFW. The benefits of in situ promotion frommos to SMOs (Rs. 3000-4500) and then to CMO (Rs. 3700-5000) after 4years and then 6 years of service respectively can be given to the 6doctors. xxx" ( 11 ) THE Governing Body has simply approved to extend the benefits of in situpromotion from MOs to SMOs and then to CMOs after 4 years and 6 years ofservice respectively, be given to 6 doctors. No date from which the decisionwould be effective is stipulated in the decision. xxx" ( 11 ) THE Governing Body has simply approved to extend the benefits of in situpromotion from MOs to SMOs and then to CMOs after 4 years and 6 years ofservice respectively, be given to 6 doctors. No date from which the decisionwould be effective is stipulated in the decision. Therefore one could infer that theeffective date would be the date on which decision is taken. However, the petitionershave filed additional affidavit on 12. 2. 2000 giving few illustrations to show thatthe effective dates of implementation of the directions of the Central Governmentare the same as is being given to the employees in the Central Governmentirrespective of the date of the Resolution of the Governing Body. ( 12 ) VARIOUS office memoranda/office orders are also annexed with the additionalaffidavit in support of the aforesaid illustrations. ( 13 ) THUS on the one hand, it can be inferred that the Governing Body has decided toextend the benefit of Tikku Committee recommendations and once it is done, itshould be from the date when the same benefit was given by the Governmentnamely 14. 11. 1991 which is the practice followed in respect of other decisions alsoas per the instances in the additional affidavit dated 12. 2. 2000. On the other hand,it can also be inferred that as the decision of the Government to accept the Tikkucommittee recommendations was not automatically applicable to the Institute, thedecision of the Governing Body taken in its meeting on 28. 3. 1995 would beapplicable from the date of the Resolution. However as no clear date is stipulated inthis respect and as both the inferences are possible, it would be appropriate toleave the matter to the Governing Body itself to clarify this position and decide thedate from which the decision dated 28. 3. 1995 is to be made effective. ACCORDINGLY the Governing Body of the Institute is directed to hold ameeting and take a clear decision as to from which date it was intended to make thedecision dated 28. 3. 1995 effective. This exercise be done by the Governing Bodywithin a period of 3 months from today. The respondents should thereafter act inaccordance with such decision. WRIT petition is disposed of in, aforesaid terms. NO order as to costs. DASTI.