JUSTICE v. NARASINGH ORDER
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Prafulla K. Das W.P.(C) No. 16821 of 2012 …. Petitioner Mrs. M. Panda, Advocate -versus- Chancellor, Utkal University and others …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. M.K. Khuntia, AGA Mr. A. Mohanty, Adv (O.P. No.2) CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
Decision
ORDER 12.01.2024 Order No. 17. 1. Heard Mrs. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Khuntia, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2. 2. Petitioner, who joined as Time Keeper pursuant to the advertisement by the Utkal University Press on 30.07.1973 which is born in Ministerial Cadres and while working as such, he retired on 30.09.2012. In the month of his retirement in 2012, the Petitioner filed the present Writ Application with the following prayers; “PRAYER to It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased issue a Writ/Writs, Order/Orders, Direction/Directions under article 226 of the Constitution of India and more particularly issue directions and more particularly to issue; i) Writ of certiorari calling upon the Opposite Parties to produce the relevant records and return; Page 1 of 5 ii) Writ of mandamus directing the Opp. party No.2 to fix the scale of pay of Rs.320-750/- and give other consequential fitments granted from time to time till 2012; iii) Writ of mandamus directing the Opp. party No.2 to disburse the differential Salaries and other components to the Petitioner as due under law; iv) Writ of mandamus directing the Opp. Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion at par with the Officer similarly placed in cluster of Grade-II Assistant with retrospective effect; v) Writ of mandamus directing the Opposite Party to confer all consequential service benefits available to the Petitioner under law; xxxx xxx xxx” 3. To fortify her claim of the Petitioner to be treated at par with that Head Time Keeper which would consequentially result in promotional avenues and high scale of pay of the Government Press, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the communication of the Secretary to the Chancellor dated 31.05.1987 at Annexure-4 addressed to The Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government of Orissa, Education & Youth Services Department, Bhubaneswar, Opposite Party No.3. 4. The Petitioner also relies on the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1981 relating to the re-designation of Head Time Keeper of Government Press wherein, it has been stated that the Head Time Keeper has to be designated as Senior Assistant in the Directorate of Printing, Stationery and publication. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that because of the arbitrary action on the part of the authorities in not taking any steps for treating him at par with Head Page 2 of 5 Time Keeper under the Government press, the Petitioner has suffered stagnation and his promotional avenues were curtailed for which, the intervention of this Court is sought. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the University Authorities, Opposite Party No.2 controverting the allegations made. The said counter affidavit has been adopted by the State- Opposite Party No.3. 7. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties draws the attention of this Court to paragraph-10 of the counter wherein, the University Authorities has stated that the State Government is the funding agency of the University and concurrence of the Finance Department is mandatory for revision of scale of pay of the employees, besides, the approval of the Hon’ble Chancellor. The said Paragraph-10 is culled out hereunder for convenience of ready reference: “ xxx xxx xxx (10) As regards the averments made in Paragraph 17 of the writ petition it is reiterated at the cost of repetation. That the State Govt. is the funding agency of the University. Concurrence of finance department is mendatory for revision of scale of pay of the employees, besides, the approval of the Hon'ble Chancellor. It is further submitted that there is no promotional facility for the Post of Time Keeper of University Press like some other non-teaching Post. As such the provision of Time Bound Advancement after completion of 25 and 30 years of services have been extended to the petitioner on the basis of his application as per rule. scale of pay (TBA) Therefore, the question of enjoying the Promotional benefits at par with other Employees Page 3 of 5 of the Cluster (Grade-II/Senior Assistant) does not arise. The Xerox Copy of the Office orders of (TBA) and A.C.P. availed by the petitioner are annexed as Annexure No.-C/2. xxx xxx xxx” 8. It is apt to note here that referring to Anexure-4 which is the basis of claim of the Petitioner and which was addressed by the Secretary to the Government, a reply was submitted by the Government which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition. 9. Since the same has a direct bearing on the point at issue for convenience of ready reference, the same is extracted hereunder; “Government of Orissa Education and Youth Services Department -0- No.IE/W-96/89. / EYS. DT. From Sri B. Sarangi, OAS (I)., Joint Secretary to Government. To The Under Secretary to Governor, Rajbhavan, Orissa, Bhubaneswar. Sub: Revision of the pay scale of the Time-Keeper of the University Press. Sir, I am directed to invite a reference to your Letter no.98/SG dt. 22.1.88 on the subject mentioned above and to say that the job chart of the Time- keeper of is not equivalent to that of the Head Time Keeper of the Govt. Press, rather it is almost identical with the job chart of the Time Keeper of Govt. Press who is the Utkal University Press Page 4 of 5 placed in the scale of Rs.780-1160/- which is lower than the scale of pay allowed to the Time-Keeper of the Utkal University Press, Since the Time keeper of the Utkal University Press is enjoying higher scale of pay than his counter part in the Government Press, the proposal merits no consideration. Yours faithfully, Joint Secretary to Government. Memo No. 36574 / EYS, DT. Copy forwarded to the Registrar, Utkal University for information with reference to his Letter No.30815 dt.3.11.88. Sd/- Joint Secretary to Government.” 9.A. The Petitioner has not chosen to assail the said reply of the Government. 10. Taking into account the stand of the University that it’s a government funded agency and that in the face of Annexure-5 response of the Government to the letter of the Secretary to the Hon’ble Chancellor being un-assailed, this Court does not find any merit in the W.P.(C). 11. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Santoshi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Jan-2024 11:21:22 Page 5 of 5