Supreme Court of India

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITYversusSMT. T. SUMALATHA AND ORS.

Citation: 2003 INSC 383
Decided: 11 August 2003
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: S RAJENDRA BABU

Holding

GO No.212 does not apply to the employees of the Nodal Centre, which is a Central Government scheme, and therefore regularisation cannot be ordered, though the Court directed the Union Ministry to consider increasing their consolidated salary.

Summary

The respondents, five employees of a Nodal Centre set up in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University under the centrally‑funded National Technical Manpower Information System, filed a writ petition seeking regularisation and regular pay scales. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, relying on GO No.212 (Finance & Planning) issued by the State Government, directed the University and the State to regularise the employees. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Nodal Centre is a wing of the Central Government, not an agency of the State, and therefore GO No.212 does not apply to its staff. The Court observed that the employees were not appointed through a regular selection process and could not be treated as regular government servants. While denying regularisation, the Court directed the Union Ministry of Education to consider increasing the consolidated salary of the four investigators and to raise the office‑expenditure ceiling for the attender. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court judgment.

Issues considered

The applicability of GO No.212 (Finance & Planning) issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Government to employees of a Nodal Centre established under a Central Government scheme.
Whether the Nodal Centre functions as an agency of the State Government for purposes of service regularisation.
Whether the employees are entitled to regularisation and regular pay scales under the said GO.
Whether the Central Government should be directed to increase the consolidated salary of the employees.

Subjects

service lawregularisationcentral government schemeNodal Centreconsolidated payArticle 21Article 14government order applicabilitysalary revision

Judgment

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLd~ICAL UNIVERSITY A
v.
SMT. T. SUMALA THA AND ORS.

AUGUST 11, 2003

[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.] B

Service Law:

Regularization-Appointment made on consolidated pay-By University
at Nodal Centre under a scheme of Central Government-Funding and C
supervision of the Nodal Centre by Central Government-Claim for
regularization-Granted by Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court
on the basis of State Government G.O. holding the Nodal Centre to be an
agency of the Government-On appeal held: State Government G. 0. wrongly
applied-The G.O. was not intended to cover the employees engaged in the D
Nodal Centre which for all practical purposes acts as a wing of Central
Government-Hence, regularization not justified-However, direction issued
for increase in the consolidated salary.

Under a scheme known as National Technical Manpower
Information System sponsored by Government of India, Nodal Centre was E
set up in the appellant-University. The scheme contemplated deployment
of Postgraduate Engineering students in Nodal Centres during vacation.
As the students were riot available, respondent Nos. l to 4 were recruited
at the Nodal Centre in appellant-University on consolidated pay.
Respondent No.5 was appointed as Attender-cum-Sweeper on daily wages
basis. Later she was placed on consolidated pay. Their appointments were F
renewed from time to time.

Respondents filed writ petition before High Court seeking direction
to regularize their services and to accord them regular pay scales. High
Court allowed the writ petition directing the University to regularise their G
services if they had completed three years of service and were qualified
and the posts were advertised by the University. State Government was
also directed to take final decision on the proposal of the University to
create additional posts. On review, Single Judge, relying on G.O. M.S.

401 H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A No.212 (Finance and Planning) issued by State Government held that by
virtue of the G.O. which was applicable to the University employees as
well, respondents 1 to 3 and 5 who had completed more than 5 years of
service were liable to be regularized. Regarding 4th respondent who had
not completed 3 years of service, it directed the University to send proposal
B tll State Government for creation of an additional post In writ appeal,
Division Bench of High Court affirmed the judgment of Single Judge
observing that all the employments in the institute, whether grant comes
from the State or Central Government, are employments in the Institute
which is an agency of the State Government and thus all Government
orders intended to apply to such agency of the State Government have to .
C be applied to it. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. 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
D 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 University- 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
E 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 ~cheme as well as in the orders releasing the annual grants.
F 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.
By .virtue of the last para of the GO the State Government does not assume
the responsibility of absorbing the staff employed in the organizations or
establishments with which it has no administrative or financial nexus,
G merely because an instrumentality of the State is involved in managing it.
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. [407-A-D; 408-B, D)

1.2. There is nothing on record to show that the concerned
H
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY v. T. SUMALATHA 403

employees were appointed after following due procedure for selection. A
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. The scheme envisaged the
employment to senior Engineering students during vacation periods and B
for payment of remuneration for the work done by them. As the students
were not prepared to take up the work of investigation, 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 C
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, no post of Attender has been
sanctioned under the scheme. However, her salary was being met out of D
the funds allocated for office expenditure. (408-G, H; 409-A-D]

2.1. 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 E
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 Noda' Centre
almost from its inception by paying them remuneration which, by any
objective standards, is grossly low. It is therefore imperative that the
concerned Ministry of the Union of India should take expeditious steps to F
increase the salary of Respondents 1 to 4 working in the Nodal Centre. 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, the
Court is not in a position to give any direction based on the principle of G
'equal pay for equal work'. However, it is 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. [408-D-H; 409-A) H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 2.2. As far as the 5th respondent is concerned, though similar
directions cannot be given in view of the fact that the post is not specifically
sanctioned under the scheme, 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. (410-A, BJ

B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4094 of 1998.

From the Judgment and Order dated 3.4.97 of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in W.A. No. 302 of 1997.

V.R. Reddy, R. Venugopal, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, S. Udaya Kumar
C Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Prashanth, T.V. Ratnam, Ms. Sushma Suri, Adv.
(NP) and E.C. Vidya Sagar for the Appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

P. VENKAT ARAMA RED DI, J. Respondents l to 4 were appointed
D 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
E 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 ofRs.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
F 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
G 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
H Ministry of Education and 17 Nodal Centres in the selected higher institutes
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY v. T. SUMALATHA [REDD!, J.] 405
of Engineering and Technology. The Lead Centre will be coordinating with A
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. B
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
staff - Project Officer (Reader), P.A., Computer Operator and Research C
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 here with para 5 of the scheme which
reads as follows:

"5. Besides, the nodal Centres shall also be entitled to collect the D
necessary data through appropriate programming by employing
students of senior classes i.e., postgraduate level and Ph.D. level
during the vacation periods. The data thus collected can be processed
by the nodal centrei: on a continuing basis round the year. Each nodal
centre will be entitled to an assistance from senior students amounting E
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 expenditur.! not
exceeding Rs.27,500 per annum for collection of data by employing
students of the senior classes."
F
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 G
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 I to 4 were recruited as Investigators on consolidated
pay.
I-I
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 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 I to 5 herein filed Writ Petition under Article
226 of the Constitution in the High Court of A.P. seeking a writ or direction
B 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
regularfse 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
C 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
D (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. I 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
E petitio11er, 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
F 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 could be extended. Against the order of the learned Single
. Judge in the Review Petition, the University filed Writ Appeal w~ich was
G dismissed by the Division Bench on 3.4.1997 affirming the order of the
learned Single Judge. The Division Bench observed that "all e~ployments 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
H the State have to be applied to it." On appeal by the University, this Court
JAW AHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY v. T. SUMALATHA [REDD!, J.] 407

stayed the operation of the judgment of the High Court. A
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 University-a Centre of B
excellence chosen by the Ministry of Education, acts fur and on behalf of
Government of India and the Nodal Centre is nothing but the reflection of
Central Government acting through the media of Universi1';. 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 C
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. D
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 E
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 proteges of the Central Government. GO 212 has to be
understood and applied, having due regard to its tenor and purpose. The GO, p

- 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 G
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

H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 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 ill) Department before orders are issued for such regularization
or absorption."

B Can it be said that by virtue of this provision, the State Government
assumes the responsibility of absorbing the staff employed in the organizations '\1
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
C the State Government or its instrumentalities have not created the posts on
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
D 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 I to 5, if necessary, by creating
additional posts.
E
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 I to 5
on regular basis, by reason of their longstanding service. It is pointed out by
p 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.
G 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
H procedure for selection. Apparently, they were picked and chosen by the
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY v. T. SUMALATHA [REDDI, J.] 409

University authorities to cater to the exigencies of work in the Nodal Centre. A
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 B
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 C
work pursuant to the scheme. The plea to regularize their services is
misconceived having regard to the background and circumstances in which
respondents l 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. D
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 E
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 stand'ards, 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 thaQ six years back. F
... 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 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 G
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
H
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A respondents I 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 c.onsider increasing the
B 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
C judgment. No costs.

K.K.T. Appeal allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "service law"Sign in to search