IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authorization of pay scale and status must comply with the decisions of the Government of India and the resolutions of the appellant Institute's Board, and that the court will not interfere with such decisions through judicial review.

JUDGMENT :

(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.) :

Heard Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. H. Lampu, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner and Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI appearing for the performa respondent no. 2.

2. The North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology (NERIST) (herein after referred to as the appellant Institute) as appellant has instituted the present intra-Court appeal presenting a challenge to the judgment and order, dated 28.11.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the WP(C) No. 326(AP)/2015, instituted by the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner herein.

3. The facts leading to the institution of WP(C)/326(AP)/2015, is briefly noticed herein under:-

(i) The respondent no. 1 was initially engaged as a Lower Divisional Clerk (LDC) on contingent basis at a consolidated wages of Rs. 930/-p.m., by the appellant Institute vide a communication dated 24.11.1995 for a period of 89 days w.e.f. 27.11.1995. The petitioner was given extensions from time to time till 25.04.1998. It is to be mentioned that although the petitioner was initially engaged for the work of the post of LDC, subsequently, she was engaged as a Hindi Typist in the appellant Institute.

(ii) The services of the petitioner on contingent basis was terminated by the appellant Institute on 26.04.1998, which led to the institution of Civil Rule No. 2349/98 by the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner before the Principal Seat of this Court. The said writ application was subsequently transferred to this Bench and re-numbered as WP(C) No. 378(AP)/2001. The said writ petition was given a final consideration and this Court, vide order dated 20.12.2002, proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition with a direction to the authorities of the appellant Institute to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of her services as and when such exercise is undertaken for persons similarly situated and working in the said appellant Institute. It was further provided that till the time the petitioners’ case is considered for regularization, she be allowed to remain in services and shall not be replaced by any other adhoc employee. Basing on the said direction as passed by the learned Single Judge in the matter, in the said writ petition, the appellant Institute vide order dated 20.01.2003, proceeded to allow the respondent no. 1 herein to continue as a Hindi Typist on contingent basis at a consolidated wages of Rs. 1499/- p.m. w.e.f. from 23.12.2002, until further orders. The period w.e.f. the date of her termination till her reinstatement i.e. w.e.f. 24.06.1998 to 22.12.2002, she was held to be not entitled for any wages, inasmuch, she was not in the rolls of the appellant Institute during that period.

(iii) The respondent no. 1 after being so reinstated in her services, had noticed that she was being paid her wages at a lower rate than that paid to persons projected to be similarly situated like her and accordingly, she approached the authorities by way of a representation dated 27.03.2003, for enhancement of her wages. The appellant Institute thereafter, considered the case of the petitioner in the light of the Government of India decision holding the field in this connection and it was ultimately decided that the petitioner would be entitled to 1/30th of the minimum basic pay of LDC along with DA as applicable for the period of the services rendered by her as a contingent Hindi Typist w.e.f. 23.12.2002. The said enhancement of pay of the petitioner was so effected vide order dated 13.04.2006, issued by the Registrar of the appellant Institute. It is to be noticed that in the said order it was mentioned that the petitioner having not completed 240 days of continuous service in the Institute before 01.09.1993, she was being authorized daily wage @ 1/30th of minimum basic pay of LDC along with the applicable DA.

(iv) The petitioner thereafter, vide her representation dated 23.05.2013, proceeded to make