http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  7356 of 2000

PETITIONER: Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan

RESPONDENT: Rajesh Mohan Shukla & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/07/2007

BENCH: A.K.MATHUR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

With :            Civil  Appeal No.7357 of 2000

A.K. MATHUR, J.

1.              The short question  involved in these appeals is whether   the Youth Coordinators are entitled to equal pay for equal work   working in the same organization.

2.              On 14.11.1972, on the birth anniversary of Pandit  Jawahar Lal Nehru  the Government of India took a decision to start  Nehru Yuva Kendra in every   district in the country.  The scheme  was floated with a view to involve the rural youth  who do not have  otherwise  opportunities  for participation  in programmes  of self,  social  and national development. This scheme was earlier launched  by the Government of India,  through the then Ministry of Education  and Social Welfare Department  now re-designated as the Ministry of  Human Resources Development ( Department of Youth Affairs and  Sports).  Initially, the appointment of these Youth Co-ordinators were  made on ad hoc basis. Thereafter, a proposal was made by the  Government of India in July, 1977 to the Union  Public Service  Commission ( for short, UPSC) for continuation of the ad hoc  arrangement but the UPSC did not accept the same and instructed  that the recruitment rules  be notified. Thereafter,  Nehru Yuva  Youth  Coordinators Recruitment Rules, 1980 were promulgated.   Under  these rules, one of the modes of recruitment was by way of  deputation from the Government  departments  and another by direct  recruitment. Thereafter,  Government of India in the Ministry of  Human Resources Development (Department of Youth Affairs and  Sports) decided to establish a Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, an  autonomous body under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and in  pursuance  thereof, a resolution was passed on 24.3.1987 and the  management and administration of Nehru Yuva Kendra located in  various districts was taken over  by the Sangathan with effect from  1.4.1987.  Two sources of recruitment  i.e. one by deputation and the  other by way of direct recruitment were prescribed and all these  present petitioners were recruited directly on fixed term basis.   However, those who had come on deputation were asked to exercise  their option to continue or revert back. Those who opted to continue  gave their option and were allowed to continue. Those who were  recruited were retained and those who did not exercise their option  were reverted back. Some of the aggrieved persons approached the  Central Administrative Tribunal  and thereafter the matter ultimately

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

came up before this Court and this Court passed certain directions.   This Court passed an order that the salary and other benefits which  are being drawn by the Youth Coordinators and other similarly  situated shall not be reduced to their detriment on the ground that  they have now been absorbed in the service of the Sangathan. In  pursuance to the direction given by this Court  all those deputationists  and the directly recruited Youth Coordinators were absorbed  in  Sangathan with effect from 1.4.1987 and their conditions of service  were also protected.  There was due restructure in pay in pursuance  to the direction given by this Court.   Then the Board of Directors of  the Sangathan decided that those who are directly  recruited  and  those who are on deputation their basic pay may be same but a  distinction was made with regard to their dearness allowance.  Thereafter, those   direct recruit Youth Coordinators  filed a writ  petition in the Allahabad High Court praying that they were entitled to  dearness allowance at par with the Group ’A’ Central Government  Employees. The High Court directed that the writ petitioners should   submit representation for the same benefit  to the Government and   the same was made but did not find favour with the Government. The  Government while rejecting the representation observed that different  pay structure is existing because of the order passed by the Supreme  Court and it was observed that the incumbents were on contractual  basis and so far as the salary of other lot is concerned, it is being  paid as per the direction of the Supreme Court. The direct recruits’   pay is being paid in accordance with the terms and conditions of  service which were offered to them at the time of their recruitment.   After dismissal of the representation by the Government  another writ  petition was filed by these direct recruit Youth Coordinators before  the High Court of Allahabad  for equal pay and other benefits which  are being given to their counterparts. The High Court by its order  dated  29.11.1999 allowed the writ petition and directed that same  benefits which are being given to those deputationists  and who have  been absorbed as Youth Coordinators should be given to these writ  petitioners  who have been directly recruited as the work and duties  of both the categories of Youth Coordinators are similar and they  discharge similar duties.  A counter affidavit was filed before the High  Court and it was pointed out that same pay scale  has been granted  to the writ petitioners as well as to their counterparts i.e. the  deputationists  who were absorbed except varying dearness  allowance.  The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court relying  on a decision of this Court issued mandamus to give the same  benefits as prayed by the writ petitioners including same dearness  allowance. Hence aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the  present appeals were filed.

3.              We have heard learned counsel for the parties and  perused the records. At the time of admission of these appeals, this  Court passed  the following order on 1.5.2000. The order reads as  follows :

               "  Issue notice  confined to the question as  to why the relief granted by the High Court may not  be confined to the date of filing of the writ petition in  the High Court. "

Now,  these appeals  have come up for hearing. We find that the  nature of duties being discharged by the Youth Coordinators who  have come on deputation and have been absorbed  as such and  those who were directly recruited on fixed term are discharging the  same duties. The only difference is their source of recruitment. Once  the deputationists are  discharging the same duties  and are being  paid salary and  other allowances then there is no reason to deny the  same benefits  who are discharging the same duties and functions.   Those deputationists now absorbed obtained the order from this

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

Court but the direct recruits did not approach this Court, they were  treated as a class apart because of their source of recruitment. Once  these persons are already working for more than two decades  discharging  the same functions and duties  then we see no reason  why the same benefit should not be given to  the respondents.  Looking to the nature and duties of these respondents we are of  opinion that there is no reason to treat them differently.  However, at  the time of admission this Court on 1.5.2000  confined  the relief  from  the date of filing of the writ petition before the High Court.  In fact,  these directly recruited Youth Coordinators  approached the Court in  earlier point of time but they were advised to approach the  Government and they did approach the Government  but the  Government denied them the same relief as was given to the  deputationists.   Therefore, there is no reason not to grant them the  same scale pay and as such this Court at the time of admission  has  confined the relief that why it should not be granted from the date of  the filing of the writ petition in the High Court. Accordingly, we  dispose of these civil appeals  with a direction  that  the same  benefits  as were being given to the Youth Coordinators  who were  initially  on deputation and were absorbed, should be given to the  respondents from the date of filing of the writ petition in the High  Court of Allahabad. Hence, the order of the High Court of Allahabad  is affirmed with minor modification as indicated above. There would  be no order as to costs.