The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No. 675 of 2024 Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology & Another …. Appellants Represented by Adv.- Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Advocate -versus- Dr. Manoj Kumar Rout & Another …. CORAM: Respondents
Legal Reasoning
Represented by Adv.- Mr. S..K. Das, Advocate JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
Decision
ORDER 23.07.2025 Order No. 05. This intra-Court appeal by the State University & its learned Vice- Chancellor seeks to assail a learned Single Judge’s order dated 12.01.2024, whereby respondent-employee’s WP(C) No.762 of 2023 having been favoured inter alia a direction has been issued to the appellants to extend the benefit of pay protection to him, within a period of two months. 2. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the appellants urged the following grounds for the invalidation of impugned order: (a) Learned Single Judge grossly erred in treating the respondent- employee on par with regular employees of the University, when his initial entry was on contract basis, and therefore pay protection does not avail to Page 1 of 5 him. (b) The Office Order dated 30.12.2022, whereby employee’s representation for the grant of pay protection has been rejected, is perfectly in accord with the policy of University and therefore could not have been faltered. (c) The Resolution which provides for pay protection was intended to benefit only 13 regular employees and therefore it cannot be extended to the respondent employee; even otherwise the said Resolution having been now withdrawn, the employee cannot much bank upon it. 3. After service of notice respondent-employee, having entered appearance through his counsel, has made the following submission for the rejection of appeal: (a) Although the employee gained service on contractual basis, he was discharging all the duties attached to the post and that he was drawing the salary and emoluments in the admissible pay scale on par with regular employees of the kind. (b) The service of employee came to be regularized and he was brought on regular rolls on par with rest of the staff and therefore the extension of pay protection by the impugned order cannot be faltered. (c) The Resolution in question, which provides for pay protection, is not confined to 13 employees at all and it extends to all employees, whether regular, temporary or otherwise, and therefore contention to the contrary should be rejected. (d) Right of an employee to pay protection arising under the policy of the employer, which is an instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, has characteristics of property and therefore it enjoys Page 2 of 5 the protection under Article 300A. (e) Lastly, the subsequent rescinding of the Resolution is prospective effective and therefore the rights that have accrued thereunder are not even least affected. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: 4.1. The answering respondent joined service of the appellant-University as Training Associate (TA) on 23.06.2006 and the said post came to be re- designated as Subject Matter Specialist. Although initial appointment was on contractual basis, full salary in the admissible pay scale was extended to him. Subsequently, his services came to be regularized vide order dated 28.12.2010 with retrospective effect from 23.06.2006, as is reflected in Annexure-10. Therefore, the first submission of the Panel Counsel that the answering respondent was not a regular employee falls to the ground. 4.2. In WP(C) No. 34221 of 2021, the employee secured an order against the appellants for the consideration of his representation wherein he had claimed for pay protection. This claim could not have been rejected, in view of Board Resolution dated 02.09.2015, which reflects the policy decision of the University to afford pay protection to employees of the kind. The said Resolution in so many words recognizes services rendered on regular basis & temporary basis. That terminology is expansive enough to include the employees who gained entry through contract but got their services regularized with effect from the date of entry itself, as rightly contended by learned counsel representing him. There is absolutely nothing to restrict the scope of this resolution in violation of its intent & policy content. Page 3 of 5 4.3. The contention of the Panel Counsel that the subject Resolution has been rescinded, does not come to the aid of appellants, apparently such rescinding not being made with retrospective effect. Resolutions of the kind create vested interest in the employees and such interest cannot be divested by prospective rescinding. That apart, action of the appellants in keeping rescinding order in abeyance adumbrates this view. At a later point, the abeyance order is recalled, makes no difference to the accrued rights. 4.4. It hardly needs to be stated that that University is a statutory body and the Resolutions passed by its authorities within the admitted competence are in the nature of Delegated Legislation, since they have repetitive character & consequence. The act of the University in rejecting the claim for pay protection is hit by doctrine of promissory estoppel vide Union Of India v. M/s. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd. AIR 1968 SC 718. Even otherwise, such Resolutions create a thick legitimate expectation, which cannot be defeated sans justification. 4.5. University, being an instrumentality of State vide Smt. Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1621, has to conduct itself as a Model Employer and its actions should not fall short of fairness standards obtaining in the realm. The respondent-employee was made to approach the Writ Court for assailing the rescinding order; during pendency of petition, the rescinding order came to be kept in abeyance eventually resulting in innocuous disposal of the said petition. Subsequent act of the University in recalling the abeyance order does not behoove its stature. Much is not necessary to discuss; we cannot leave it unsaid, either. In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been reluctantly Page 4 of 5 made easy. The appellants to comply with order of learned Single Judge and file compliance report with the Registrar General of this Court within six weeks. ( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge GS/Radha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GAGAN BIHARI SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 24-Jul-2025 20:03:08 Page 5 of 5