http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4094 of 1998

PETITIONER: Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University        

RESPONDENT: Vs. Smt. T. Sumalatha & Ors.                                 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/08/2003

BENCH: S. RAJENDRA BABU & P. VENKATARAMA REDDI.

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.

Respondents 1 to 4 were appointed as Investigators on a  consolidated pay in the Nodal Centre set up in the appellant- University under a scheme known as National Technical Manpower  Information System (NTMIS) sponsored by the then Ministry of  Education and Culture, Government of India. They are all Graduates.  They were appointed on various dates between 1985 and 1991.  Initially, their appointment was for 89 days and their services were  being extended from time to time on similar terms. The consolidated  pay was revised twice and with effect from 7.3.1997 they have been  drawing a sum of Rs.2,475 p.m. as lumpsum pay. The 5th respondent  was appointed as Attender-cum-Sweeper in the year 1986 initially on  daily-wage basis. Later on, she was placed on consolidated pay and  her appointment too was being renewed from time to time. It is not in  dispute that they were all appointed by the competent authorities of  the University and the administrative control rests with the University. It is seen from the communication dated 9th November, 1983  from the Union Ministry of Education that a scheme known as  ’National Manpower Information System’ was evolved by the  Government of India. Its objective is "to provide upto date and  meaningful manpower information on a continuing basis to enable the  concerned authorities to anticipate areas of growth in the field of  Science and Technology and consequently plan for technical  manpower development on the proper lines". Under that scheme, the  NMIS will have a Lead Centre in the Institute of Applied Manpower  Research attached to the Ministry of Education and 17 Nodal Centres  in the selected higher institutes of Engineering and Technology. The  Lead Centre will be coordinating with the functions of various Nodal  Centres and oversee the proper functioning of those Centres. The  appellant, JNT University, Hyderabad is one of the institutions  selected for the establishment of Nodal Centre. The Nodal Centres  would be mainly concerned with the collection of data and the  preliminary processing of data so as to make it suitable for further  processing in a computer. The Nodal Centre is also expected to  undertake analytical work wherever required. An advisory body has  been formed for each State so as to provide guidance and support to  the Nodal Centres. The Head of the institution of the Nodal Centre,  the Director of Technical Education of the State and some other  officials are its members. Nodal Centres were authorized to appoint  the staffâ\200\224 Project Officer (Reader), P.A., Computer Operator and  Research Associate (one post each) for whom the Scales of Pay are  specified. It appears that these posts were filled up by drawing the  personnel from University on deputation. We are more concerned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

here with para 5 of the scheme which reads as follows: "5. Besides, the nodal Centres shall also be  entitled to collect the necessary data through  appropriate programming by employing  students of senior classes i.e., postgraduate  level and Ph.D. level during the vacation  periods. The date thus collected can be  processed by the nodal centres on a  continuing basis round the year. Each nodal  centre will be entitled to an assistance from  senior students amounting to 55 man months  in a year. Each student would be paid by the  concerned nodal centres at the rate not  exceeding Rs.500/- per month. In all each  nodal centre would be entitled to incur  expenditure not exceeding Rs.27,500/- per  annum for collection of data by employing  students of the senior classes."

It appears that the Nodal Centre was sanctioned initially for a  period of one year and nine months. However, it is being continued. It  is not in dispute that the Nodal Centre is financed entirely by the  Ministry of Education which releases the grants from time to time.   The allocation of funds for various items of expenditure including staff  salaries is specifically mentioned in the order releasing recurring  grant. The consolidated pay was enhanced by the Government of  India on two occasions, while releasing the grants. As the  Postgraduate Engineering students referred to in para 5 of the  scheme were not available, respondents 1 to 4 were recruited as  Investigators on consolidated pay. Inspired by the Judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in a  writ petition filed by the employees of the University who were  appointed temporarily on consolidated pay and working in the self- supporting schemes of the University, Respondents 1 to 5 herein filed  Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of  A.P. seeking a writ or direction to regularize their services and to  accord them regular pay-scales.  The High Court allowed the writ  petition and gave a direction to the University to regularise the  services of the writ petitioners if they had completed three years of  service and they are qualified  and the posts are advertised  by the  University. The State Government was also directed to take a final  decision on the proposal of the University to create additional posts  within the specified time limit. Review petition was filed by the  University contending that the Division Bench decision on which the  learned Single Judge of the High Court  relied upon pertains to  University  employees working on temporary or ad hoc basis whereas  the writ petitioners in the present case are entirely governed by the  scheme formulated by the Government of India.  In the Review  Petition, the Learned Judge focused his attention on GO MS No. 212  (Finance & Planning) dated 22.4.1994 issued by the Government of  Andhra Pradesh and held that by virtue of the said GO which is  applicable to the University employees as well the service of the writ  petitioners No. 1 to 3 and 5, who completed more than five years of  service on the crucial date mentioned in the GO, was liable to be  regularised. As regards the 4th writ petitioner, who did not complete  three years of service by 25.11.1993, the learned Judge   directed the  University to send proposal to the State Government for creation of  an additional post and the Government should take a decision within  one month from the date of the receipt of proposal.  The High Court  further observed that after the post is sanctioned, the University shall  advertise and fill up the vacancy by appointing petitioner No. 4 if he is  otherwise qualified.  The Review Petition was disposed of  accordingly.  It may be stated that the High Court did not accept the  contention of the University that the writ petitioners are not  employees of the University to whom the benefit of GO MS No. 212

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

could be extended. Against the order of the learned Single Judge in  the Review Petition, the University filed Writ Appeal which was  dismissed by the Division Bench on 3.4.1997 affirming the order of  the learned Single Judge.  The Division Bench observed that "all  employments in the institute, whether grant for the post comes from  the State Government or from the Central Government, are  employments in the institute which is an agency of the Government of  the State of Andhra Pradesh and thus all Government orders  intended to apply to such agency of the Government of the State  have to be applied to it." On appeal by the University, this Court  stayed the operation of the judgment of the High Court. We are of the view that the High Court fell into error in applying  GO No. 212 dated 22.4.1994 to the case of  the writ petitioners.  The  observations of the Division Bench that the Nodal Centre is an  agency of the State Government, is obviously without factual and  legal basis. The terms and features of the scheme unmistakably  indicates that the Universityâ\200\224a Centre of excellence chosen by the  Ministry of Education, acts for and on behalf of Government of India  and the Nodal Centre is nothing but the reflection of Central  Government acting through the media of University. The entire  funding is done by the Central Government and the Nodal Centre  functions under the overall supervision and guidance of the Lead  Centre attached to the Ministry of Education. Even the details of  expenditure including the payments to be made to the staff of various  categories are spelt out in the scheme as well as in the orders  releasing the annual grants.  There is, therefore,  an obvious fallacy  in the reasoning of the High Court that the ’institute’ (Nodal Centre)  acts as an agency of the State Government. The State Government  does not come into the picture at all. In our view, it would be wholly inappropriate to apply GO No.  212 to the temporary staff appointed by the University exclusively for  the Nodal Centre set up under   the auspices of the Government of  India. GO MS No. 212 is not intended to  cover the employees such  as the writ petitioners who are engaged in the Nodal Centre  which  for all practical purposes acts as a wing of the Central Government.   In one sense the writ petitioners may be regarded as employees of  the University as they were appointed by the University and the  disciplinary control vests with the University. In another sense, they  are protégés of the Central Government. GO 212 has to be  understood and applied, having due regard to its tenor and purpose.  The GO, no doubt, envisages regularization of the services of the  persons appointed on daily wages or consolidated pay who fulfill the  conditions laid down therein.  But, it is intended to cover the  categories of employees working in the State Government  departments/institutions or bodies controlled or administered by the  State Government and in respect of whom the State Government or  such bodies have to bear the financial burden on account of  regularization.  The last para of GO No. 212 gives the clear indication  of its purport and intendment.  The said para reads as under: "All the Departments of Secretariat/Heads of  Departments are requested to process the  cases of absorption/ regularization of services  of NMRS/Daily Wage employees etc.,  in  pursuance of the above scheme and obtain  the clearance of Govt. in Finance  & Planning  (PW PC III) Department before orders are  issued for such regularization or absorption."

Can it be said that by virtue of this provision, the State  Government assumes the responsibility of absorbing the staff  employed in the organizations or establishments with which it has no  administrative or financial  nexus, merely because an instrumentality  of the State is involved in managing it, that too, in a limited sense?  The answer could only be in the negative. When the State  Government or its instrumentalities have not created the posts on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

their own  and do not bear any part of financial burden, the question   of getting the clearance from the Finance and Planning department of  the Government for the purpose of regularization or absorption does  not arise. Viewed from any angle, GO 212 would be wholly out of  place for those working in the Nodal Centre which is created and  nurtured by the Central Government.  It is not within the domain of  the State Government or even University to regulate the staff pattern  or the monetary benefits of the staff working therein, without the  approval of Central Government. Therefore, no directions should  have been issued to the State Government or to the University to  regularize the services of respondents 1 to 5, if necessary, by  creating additional posts.  The next question is whether the Central Government i.e.,  Respondents 7 & 8, should be directed to take steps to create posts  with appropriate pay-scales in the Nodal Centre for the purpose of  absorbing respondents 1 to 5 on regular basis, by reason of their  longstanding service. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the  respondent-employees that the Nodal Centre, though conceived as a  temporary scheme, has come to stay for nearly two decades by now  and its relevance is not lost in the present day context and the  possibility of its disbandment is remote. The learned counsel  therefore contends that there is every justification for absorbing the  concerned respondents on regular basis in recognition of their long  satisfactory service. The learned counsel further contends that the  adhoc arrangement to employ them on consolidated pay should not  go on forever. The contention of the learned counsel cannot be  sustained for more than one reason and we find no valid grounds to  grant the relief of regularization. There is nothing on record to show  that the concerned employees were appointed after following due  procedure for selection. Apparently, they were picked and chosen by  the University authorities to cater to the exigencies of work in the  Nodal Centre. Secondly, having regard to the background in which  respondents 1 to 4 were drafted to perform the job assigned to them,  it is difficult to concede to them the status of regular Government  servants. As seen earlier, the scheme envisaged the employment of  senior Engineering students during vacation periods and for payment  of remuneration for the work done by them. As the students were not  prepared to take up the work of investigation as stated in the counter- affidavit filed in the High Court, the University authorities thought of  inducting respondents 1 to 4 to perform the job which was expected  to be done by the Post-Graduate students on part-time basis. The  appointment of respondents 1 to 4 was thought of only by way of  substituting them for the Engineering students who, in the normal  course, would have taken up the work pursuant to the scheme. The  plea to regularize their services is  misconceived having regard to the  background and circumstances in which respondents 1 to 4 came to  be appointed. As regards the 5th respondent, the position is still  worse. No post of Attender has been sanctioned under the scheme.  However, as seen from the counter-affidavit filed in the High Court,  her salary was being met out of the funds allocated for office  expenditure. Though the plea of regularization in respect of any of the five  respondents cannot be countenanced, the respondent-employees  should have a fair deal consistent with the guarantee enshrined in  Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution. They should not be made to  work on meagre salary for years together. It would be unfair and  unreasonable to extract work from the employees who have been  associated with the Nodal Centre almost from its inception by paying  them remuneration which, by any objective standards, is grossly low.  The Central Government itself has rightly realized the need to revise  the consolidated salary and accordingly enhanced the grant on that  account on two occasions. That revision was made more than six  years back.  It is high time that another revision is made. It is  therefore imperative that the concerned Ministry of the Union of India  should take expeditious steps to increase the salary of Investigators

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

viz., Respondents   1 to 4 working in the Nodal Centre in Hyderabad.  In the absence of details regarding the nature of work done by the  said respondents and the equivalence of the job done by them to the  other posts prevailing in the University or the Central Government  institutions, we are not in a position to give any direction based on the  principle of ’equal pay for equal work’. However, we consider it just  and expedient to direct Respondent No.7 or 8, as the case may be, to  take an expeditious decision to increase the consolidated salary that  is being paid to respondents 1 to 4 to a reasonable level  commensurate with the work done by them and keeping in view the  minimum salary that is being paid to the personnel doing more or less  similar job. As far as the 5th respondent is concerned, though we  refrain from giving similar directions in view of the fact that the post is  not specifically sanctioned under the scheme, we would like to  observe that the Central Government may consider increasing the  quantum of office expenditure suitably so that the University will be  able to disburse higher salary to the 5th respondent. In the result, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and  allow the appeal subject however to the directions given and  observations made in this judgment. No costs.