Opposite Parties Mr. S. Jena, AGA Mr v. Mohapatra
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.7485 of 2021 ..... Dr. Jajneswar Sethi Petitioner Ms. P. Rath, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. S. Gumansingh, Advocate State of Odish & Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Opposite Parties Mr. S. Jena, AGA Mr. V. Mohapatra, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 2) THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 07.08.2024 Order No. 11 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Hear Ms. P. Rath, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner along with Ms. S. Gumansingh, Mr. S. Jena, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate and Mr. V. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 2. 3. Even though the present writ petition has been filed with multiple prayers, Ms. P. Rath, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that for the present Petitioner does not want to press the prayer so far as integration of past service is concerned and liberty may be given to the Petitioner to reiterate the prayer after disposal of the matter by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various Special Leave Petitions pending in the case of State of Odisha & Anr. Vs. Kshitendra Narayan Mishra & Ors. (SLP(C) No. 4253 of 2020 and University Grants Commission Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. and other similar matters. Page 1 of 6. 4. With regard to pay protection of the Petitioner which has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.08.02.2021 under Annexure- 14, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in view of the provisions contained under Clause (i) of the Offer of Appointment issued in favour of the Petitioner vide order dtd.03.10.2013 under Annexure-2, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the said benefit. Clause (i) of the Offer of Appointment reads as follows:- “i) Your salary will be determined on the basis of the principle of pay protection, with reference to UGC pay scales prevailing in the country. You will, in addition, be entitied to revision of scale and allowances as admissible from time to time. Based on academic achievements, four (04) increments will be given to you.” 4.1. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that prior to his joining in Ravenshaw University, he was in receipt of the salary in the scale of pay of Rs.15,600/- to 39,100/- with Grade Pay of Rs.6000/- and by the time he left the Institute of Law and Research, he was in receipt of Basic Pay to Rs.24,470/- with Gross salary of Rs.33,034 as reflected in Annexure-6. It is accordingly contended that in view of the provisions contained under Clause (i) of the Offer of Appointment, Petitioner’s last pay as reflected in Annexure-6 is required to be protected. But without following the stipulation contained under Clause (i) of the Offer of Appointment, claim of the Petitioner with regard to pay protection was rejected vide the impugned order dt.08.02.2021 under Annexure-14. Page 2 of 6. 5. Mr. V. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the University on the other hand in support of the rejection so far as it relates to pay protection of the Petitioner is concerned, contended that in view of the provisions contained under the Proviso to Rule 257 of the Odisha University 1st Statute, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pay protection. Rule 257 of the Statute with the Proviso thereof are reproduced hereunder:- “257. The initial pay of a person other than one already in University service when appointed to a post under the University, shall be minimum of the pay scale prescribed for the post unless otherwise decided by the appointing authority recommendation of the Selection Committee: Provided that the last pay drawn by a person who was in service under the State or the Central Government, a college affiliated to any University and aided by the State Government or statutory institution immediately before joining the University shall be protected while fixing his pay in the scale of pay to which he is appointed in the University. In exceptional cases, such as in the case of appointment to specialized posts, the pay of a person from a public/joint sector enterprise or institution or a private sector institution may also be suitably fixed on the recommendation of the Selection Committee.” 5.1. It is also contended that on his joining in terms of the Offer of Appointment, since Petitioner accepted the pay scale and the pay so fixed, Petitioner cannot make any further grievance with regard to pay protection. It is accordingly contended that claim of the Petitioner so far as it relates to pay protection has been rightly rejected. But with regard to integration of past service, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 2 did not dispute the contention raised by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner regarding pendency of the issue before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Page 3 of 6. 6. To the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the University, Ms. Rath, learned Sr. Counsel contended that provisions contained under Odisha University 1st Statute so relied on by the University, came into operation w.e.f.9th November, 2020 in terms of the notification issued by the Law Department under Annexure-15. It is accordingly contended that since by the time Petitioner was offered with the appointment in the year 2013, the Rules relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the University was not in force, he will be governed by the terms and conditions of the Offer of Appointment more particularly Clause (i) thereof. 6.1. Learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner also contended that since while issuing the Offer of Appointment, University agreed to protect the pay of the Petitioner which amounts to a promise on the part of the University, after his joining, the University on the ground of Promissory Estoppel, cannot wriggle out of that. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned Sr. Counsel relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (1979) 2 SCC 409. Relevant extract contained in Para 8 of the said Judgment reads as follows:- to create legal relations or affect a “The true principle of promissory estoppel, therefore, seems to be that where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is legal intended relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so having regard to the Page 4 of 6. dealings which have taken place between the parties, and this would be so irrespective of whether there is any pre-existing relationship between the parties or not.” 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court is of the view that by the time Petitioner was issued with the Offer of Appointment vide order dtd.03.10.2013, provisions contained under Rule 257 of the University 1st Statute was not there and the same only came into existence w.e.f.09.11.2020. Therefore, the stand taken by the University that in view of the provisions contained under the Proviso to Rule 257, Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit of pay protection is not acceptable to this Court. 7.1. Since while issuing the Offer of Appointment, it was clearly indicated that pay of the Petitioner will be protected, taking into account the certificate issued by the previous Institution under Annexure-6 and the provisions contained under Clause (i) of the Offer of Appointment, this Court is of the view that pay of the Petitioner is required to be protected. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to quash the order of rejection so far as it relates to pay protection of the Petitioner is concerned vide the impugned order dtd.08.02.2021 under Annexure-4. While quashing the same, this Court directs the University to extend the benefit of pay protection taking into account the pay he was in receipt of and as indicated in Annexure-6. 7.2. Such a fresh order as directed be issued by the University- Opp. Party No. 2 within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order with release of the consequential benefit accruing therein. With regard to the other prayer made in the writ Page 5 of 6. petition, Petitioner is granted liberty to reiterate the same after disposal of the Special Leave Petitions pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court as indicated hereinabove.
Decision
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Aug-2024 10:43:30 Page 6 of 6.