The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.14946 of 2024 Judhistir Sahu …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.R. Pati, Advocate for Berhampur University Mr. T.K. Satapathy, Advocate with Mr. I.A. Acharya, Advocate for UGC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 22.07.2025 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- to quash “Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court be graciously the office order no.6531 pleased dtd.24.09.2021 of the Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-6 and also quash the office order no.1173 dtd.11.02.2022 of the Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-8 and be further pleased to direct the Opp. Parties to re-fix the pay of the petitioner in the UGC in the scale of pay from 01.01.1986 and also subsequent revisions of pay and to pay the differential // 2 // arrears thereof as his case is squarely covered by the judgment in this Hon’ble Court in OJC No.1088 of 2000 disposed of on 30.09.2021, reported in 2012 (II) OLR-23 and further the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Opp. Parties to revise the pension of the petitioner and to pay the differential arrears thereof accordingly within a stipulated period as deem fit and proper.” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the case of General Secretary, Utkal University Demonstrators’ Association Vrs. Utkal University and Others, reported in 2012 (II) OLR-23, petitioner raised his claim to get the benefit of UGC Scale of Pay as applicable to the post of Demonstrators, working under the University. 3.1. It is contended that this Court in the case of General Secretary as cited (supra) vide the aforesaid judgment, held the demonstrators working under Utkal University, entitled to get the benefit of UGC Scale of
Legal Reasoning
Pay. View Expressed by this Court in Para-18 and 19 of the said judgment reads as follows:- “18. Applying this principle to the case in hand, we see that the UGC norms of 1986, the Central Government approved the revised scale of pay, which shall be paid to the Tutors & Demonstrators for the existing incumbents of this position in the University & Colleges, but there shall be no fresh latter this category. However, recruitment Notification of the year 1998, the scale of pay which is given in a tabulated form, the category of employees namely: Demonstrators/Tutors have been omitted from the University but the same Demonstrators & Tutors have been included as employees of the Colleges. Thus, it is clear that the guideline the in to Page 2 of 18 // 3 // for is discriminated against the Demonstrators, who are working in the University, though a higher scale of pay have been in recommended the Colleges. This, illegal, discriminatory & is also violative of principles of articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we find sufficient force in the submission made by the Petitioners. the Demonstrators working is arbitrary, in our opinion,
Decision
19. In view of the above, this Court comes to the conclusion that since the U.G.C. has approved the pay scale of Demonstrators/Tutors, they shall be given financial benefits as admissible to them. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. It is directed that the pay scale of the members of the Petitioners Association will be fixed notionally & annual increment will be allowed till 01.01.1986, but no financial benefit will be given from 01.01.1986 to 01.01.1996. It is further directed that the scale of pay of the Tutors i.e. Rs.1740- 3000 & the scale of pay of Demonstrators Rs.2200 4000, who have reached at the stage of Rs.2700, shall be fixed w.e.f. 01.01.1986. It is further directed that the employees are also entitled to get revised scale of pay introduced by the corresponding pay scale of Rs.5500 - 9000 (1740 - 3000) & Rs.8000 -13500 (2200-4000). It was brought to our notice that the Demonstrators are being paid a consolidated salary of Rs.7500. We direct that their pay scale will be revised as per the direction of this Court within three months & the differential salary be disbursed in their favour.” the UGC w.e.f 01.01.1996 with 3.2. It is contended that on the face of the order passed by this Court in the case of General Secretary, when claim of the petitioner to get such benefit was not considered, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.15459 of 2016. This Court vide order dated 09.09.2016 though directed for consideration of the petitioner’s claim in the light of the order passed by this Court in the case of General Secretary, but the same was not complied. It is also contended that similar claim made by the Demonstrators Association Page 3 of 18 // 4 // of Berhampur University in W.P.(C) No.9008 of 2016 was disposed of by this Court on 20.05.2016 inter alia directing the authorities of Berhampur University to consider the claim of Demonstrators in the light of the decision in the case of General Secretary. 3.3. However, on the face of such orders passed in W.P.(C) No.9008 of 2016 and in W.P.(C) No.15459 of 2016, claim of the petitioner was never considered. However, in the meantime, order passed by this Court in the case of General Secretary after being confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Demonstrators working in Utkal University were extended with the benefit of UGC Scale of Pay w.e.f. 01.01.1986 vide order dated 23.12.2014 under Annexure-3. Para-1 and 2 of the order dated 23.12.2014 reads as follows:- “1. UGC pay scales are to be fixed notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1986 in respect of Demonstrators but from 01.01.1996. The financial benefit be given Demonstrators/Tutors will be given the scale of pay of Rs.1740-60-2700-EB-75-3000/- and Rs.2200-4000/- to those who have reached at the stage of Rs.2700/- as on (P.S) Dated 01.01.1986 08.10.1992. letter No.F-1-3/86 (UGC 2. The Demonstrators/Tutors are also entitled to get the revised scale of pay of Rs.5500-175-9000/- and Rs.8000-13,500/- who were enjoying the scale of pay of Rs.1740-3000/- and Rs.2200-4000/- respectively with effect from 01.01.1996. 3.4. It is contended that on the face of the compliance made by the authorities of Utkal University under Annexure-3 and the order passed by this Court in Page 4 of 18 // 5 // W.P.(C) No.9008 of 2016 and W.P.(C) No.15459 of 2016, claim of the petitioner and similarly situated Demonstrators working in Berhampur University was never considered with extension of the benefit. Accordingly, petitioner filed CONTC No.1130 of 2017 seeking compliance of order dated 09.09.2016. Order dated 09.09.2016 so passed in W.P.(C) No.15459 of 2016 reads as follows:- “Heard Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Bhuyan learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State- Opposite Party. The petitioner has filed this application seeking for a direction to Opp. Party Nos. 1 to 4 to extend the benefit of UGC Scale of pay in his favour in terms of the UGC letter dated 17.06.1987 as has been extended to the similarly placed Demonstrators w.e.f. 0101.1986 in terms of the Judgment dated 30.09.2011 passed in OJC No. 1088 of 2000. Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner states that similar case has been decided by this Court in General Secretary Utkal University Demonstrator’s Association v. Utkal University and others (passed in OJC Nos. 1088 of 2000 and 13156 of 1998 disposed of on 30.09.2011) and against the said order the State has preferred appeal before the apex Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 27288 of 2012 and the said S.L.P has been dismissed by the Apex Court and the benefit has been situated to Demonstrators. Taking into the averments made in that judgment the petitioner has filed a representation before opposite parties in Annexure-4 series which is pending for consideration. extended similar the the State-Opposite Party state Mr. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. Government Advocate the for representation filed by the petitioner is pending, let the authority apply their mind and pass appropriate order. that if Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing the authority to consider the grievance of the petitioner Page 5 of 18 // 6 // pursuant to representation filed in Annexure-4 series taking into consideration of the judgment passed in the case Secretary Utkal University Demonstrator’s Association (supra) which a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. of General Requisites for communication of this order along with copy of the judgment passed in General Secretary Utkal University Demonstrator’s Association (Supra) shall be filed within a week.” 3.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on receipt of the notice in CONTC No.1130 of 2017 and similar notice in other cases preferred by the Demonstrators working in Berhampur University, the University vide a common order issued on 06.04.2021 under Annexure-5, decided to extend the benefit of UGC Scale of Pay in favour of the Demonstrators working in Berhampur University. In the said order, name of the petitioner finds place at Sl. No.9. However, on the face of such extension of the benefit of UGC Scale of Pay so made vide office order dated 06.04.2021 under Annexure-5, Opp. Party-University suo-moto vide office order dated 24.09.2021 under Annexure-6, cancelled the said order with the observation that the matter has been referred to the Higher Education Department for clarification. 3.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that thereafter vide letter dated 30.10.2021 under Annexure-7, Govt.-O.P. No.1 issued necessary clarification with regard to extension of the benefit of Page 6 of 18 // 7 // UGC Scale of Pay in favour of the petitioner and similarly situated Demonstrators working in Berhampur University taking into account the order passed by this court in the case of General Secretary. 3.7. However, on the face of such clarification sought for from the Govt.-O.P. No.1, vide office order dated 11.02.2022 under Annexure-8, petitioner was held not eligible to get the benefit of UGC Scale of Pay. Accordingly the present Writ Petition was filed challenging order dated 11.02.2022 so passed by O.P. No.2 under Annexure-8 and withdrawal of the benefit vide order dated 24.09.2021 under Annexure-6. 3.8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that basing on the order passed in the case of General Secretary and on receipt of various orders from this Court for consideration of the claim of the petitioner and similarly situated Demonstrators working under the University to get the benefit of UGC Scale of Pay, Opp. Party-University vide order dated 06.04.2021 under Annexure-5, decided to extend the benefit of UGC Scale of Pay in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1986. In terms of the said order, petitioner’s pay was also fixed and he was extended with the UGC Scale of Pay as due and admissible. But after such extension of the benefit and without assigning any reason whatsoever and without following the principle of Page 7 of 18 // 8 // natural justice, order dated 06.04.2021 was cancelled vide order dated 24.09.2021 under Annexure-6. 3.9. After passing of the order under Annexure-6, Govt.-O.P. No.1 though was moved to give clarification with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner and similarly situated Demonstrators working under the University to get the benefit of UGC Scale of Pay, basing on the clarification issued by the Govt. on 18.11.2021, which was never communicated to the petitioner, claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 11.02.2022 under Annexure-8. It is contended that claim of the petitioner was so rejected vide the impugned order on 2 (two) grounds more fully described in the said order. The grounds of rejection so indicated in Para-1 and 2 reads as follows:- “(1) The petitioner was not holding the post of Demonstrator on 01.01.1986 since no post of Demonstrator was existing in Berhampur University on 01.01.1986 as envisaged the UGC Letter F.I-21/87-U-I dated 17.06.1987, which reads that, “The revised scale of pay of tutors and demonstrators is for the existing incumbents of these positions in the Universities and Colleges. in In fact, the petitioner was initially appointed in Berhampur University as L.D. Asst., against the vacancy of ST quota vide office order No.7181 dated 08.05.1981 with B.Sc., qualification and joined on dt.09.05.1981. Subsequently he acquired the M.Sc. Degree. Again he was appointed as Lab. Assistant in the department of Chemistry vide office order No.6509 dated 17.08.1983 and joined on dt.18.08.1983. He was re-designated as Sr. Lab. Asst. vide office order No.6637/Adm-I dated 13.05.87 and subsequently confirmed as Sr. Lab Asst. w.e.f. 18.08.1985 in the scale of pay of Rs.1005-1830. The petitioner was subsequently re- designated as Demonstrator (Non-Teaching) vide Office Page 8 of 18 // 9 // Order No.9633 dated 01.08.1989 and his scale of pay was revised to Rs.1090-1950 with retrospective effect from 01.011985. This Office Order was issued in pursuance of the Syndicate Resolution No.58 dated 29.07.89 based on the Letter No.29561/EYS dated 30.06.1989 and communicated vide Memo No.5600(3)/SG dated 7.7.89 of the Under Secretary to the Governor, Orissa, although there was no specific instruction in the said letter for extending such benefits retrospectively. (2) The petitioner had not reached Rs.2700/- as on 1.1.1986 in conformity with the judgment pronounced in OJC No.1088 of 2000 rather he was drawing Rs.1160/- as on that date. to the University In fact, the State Government in the Department of Higher Education, Odisha vide its letter No.538/HE dated furnish 08.01.2019 has directed information relating to (1) Names of Demonstrators in various Departments of Berhampur University and (2) Names of Demonstrators who had reached the stage of Rs.2700/- in their scale of pay on 01.01.1986. In reply to this letter, the University vide its letter No.947/Admn.II (NT) dated 05.02.2019 has furnished the names of all the Demonstrators (re-designated on 01.08.1989) along with their departments and pay as on 01.01.1986. In the said letter, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner was drawing Rs.1160/- as on 01.01.1986.” 3.10. With regard to the stand taken in the impugned order regarding ineligibility of the petitioner to get the benefit of UGC Scale of Pay so indicated in Para-1 indicated hereinabove, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner while continuing under the University, basing on a joint circular issued by the Govt. on 10.04.1989, vide office order dated 21.04.1990 under Annexure-9, petitioner was declared as teaching staffs of the University. Page 9 of 18 // 10 // 3.11. It is contended that on the face of the circular issued by the Govt. on 10.04.1989, since petitioner was declared as a Teaching Staffs of the University, the ground taken vide Para-1 of the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also contended that basing on such resolution issued by the Govt. on 10.04.1989, Demonstrators working under Utkal University were also treated as Teaching Staff and basing on the order passed in the case of General Secretary as cited (supra), Demonstrators working in Utkal University were extended with the benefit of UGC Scale of Pay. It is accordingly contended that the ground taken in Para-1 of the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3.12. With regard to the other stand taken in Para-1 of the impugned order that the petitioner were was holding the post of Demonstrator as on 01.01.1986, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the order passed on 01.08.1989 so passed by the University under Annexure-1. 3.13. Placing reliance on the said order, it is contended that vide the said order, petitioner was declared as a Demonstrators (Non-teaching) w.e.f. 01.01.1985. But the word ‘Non-teaching’ was subsequently modified by treating them as ‘Teaching Staff’ vide order dated 21.04.1990 under Annexure-9 in Page 10 of 18 // 11 // terms of the circular issued by the Govt. on 10.04.1989. It is accordingly contended that on the face of the order passed by the University on 01.08.1989 under Annexure-1 and further order passed by the University on 21.04.1990 under Annexure-9, petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1985 was holding the post of Demonstrator which is a ‘Teaching Post’. 3.14. With regard to the stand taken in the impugned order that the petitioner had not reached the Basic Pay of Rs.2700/- as on 01.01.1986 in confirmity with the judgment passed in the case of General Secretary as cited (supra), learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Basic Pay of Rs.2700/- so indicated in Para-19 of the judgment cannot be made applicable to the case of the Demonstrators working in any of the University as Demonstrators in different Universities of the State were allowed the Scale of Pay of Rs.1740- 3000/- in terms of ORSP Rules, 1985 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. 3.15. In support of the said submission, reliance was placed to the resolution issued by the Govt. in the Finance Department on 25.09.1989 under Annexure- 12 and the revision of the Scale of Pay allowed to the Demonstrators working under various Universities w.e.f. 01.01.1996 from the Scale of Pay of Rs.1740- 3000/- to Rs.5500-9000/-. It is contended that since Page 11 of 18 // 12 // the Scale of Pay of Rs.1740-3000/- was allowed in favour of the Demonstrators in terms of the ORSP Rules, 1985, which was made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1986, as on 01.01.1986, none of the Demonstrators working in any of the University of the State was in receipt of Basic Pay of Rs.2700/-. 3.16. It is also contended that Demonstrators working under Utkal University and receiving their salary in the Scale of Pay of Rs.1740-3000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986, were extended with the benefit of UGC Scale of Pay and the same was never cancelled by misinterpreting the order passed by this Court so reflected in Para-19 of the judgment in the case of General Secretary as cited (supra). However, cancellation of the benefit so extended by the University vide order dated 06.04.2001 under Annexure-6, was upheld vide the impugned order dated 11.02.2022 under Annexure-8. 3.17. It is contended that since similarly situated Demonstrators working in Utkal University with similar Scale of Pay and with similar designation have been extended with the benefit of UGC Scale of Pay in compliance to the order passed in the case of General Secretary, the benefit initially extended in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 06.04.2021 under Annexure-5, could not have been cancelled vide order dated 24.09.2021 under Annexure-6 and further Page 12 of 18 // 13 // upheld vide the impugned order dated 11.02.2022 under Annexure-8 in the present Writ Petition. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order passed by the University on 24.09.2021 under Annexure-6 and further order passed on dated 11.02.2022 under Annexure-8 in the present Writ Petition are not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Mr. S.R. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the University on the other hand while supporting the initial impugned order dated 24.09.2001 and further orders passed on 11.02.2022 under Annexure-8, contended that in view of the judgment passed in the case of General Secretary more particularly the view expressed in Para-19 of the judgment, since petitioner has not reached the Basic Pay of Rs.2700/- as on 01.01.1986, he is not eligible to get the benefit of UGC Scale of Pay. 4.1. It is also contended that since petitioner is the holder of a Non-teaching post and not taking the classes, such benefit was wrongly extended in his favour while complying the direction of this Court, vide order dated 06.04.2001. It is also contended that in view of the letter issued by the UGC on 17.06.1987 under Annexure-C/2, petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit of UGC Scale of Pay. It is accordingly contended that petitioner has been rightly not extended with the Page 13 of 18 // 14 // benefit of UGC Scale of Pay and the order passed under Annexure-6 and 8 require no interference. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the UGC on the other hand made his submission basing on the counter affidavit filed by him. Placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed in the present case, it is contended that petitioner is eligible to get the benefit of UGC Scale of Pay. Stand taken by the UGC in Para-6 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:- the and retired became petitioner “6. That, as per the Petition, the petitioner was appointed as L.D. Asst. in Berhampur University on 08.05.1981. He was appointed as a Lab Assistant in the Department of Chemistry on 17.08.1983. However, the petitioner was re-designated/promoted as a Senior Laboratory Assistant vide order dated 13.05.1987. The post of Laboratory Assistant was re- designated as Demonstrator (non-teaching) w.e.f. 01.01.1985 a Demonstrator and they were treated as a teaching staff. The Petitioner from service on 30.04.2017. The Ministry of Human Resources Development, vide letter dated 17.06.1987 decided to implement a scheme of revision of the salary of Demonstrators in the Universities and colleges. As per the abovementioned order, the petitioner is entitled to the scale of pay prescribed by UGC. Consequently, the benefit of the aforesaid scale of pay should have been paid to him as all the other Demonstrators working in different Universities were extended the said benefit. The Hon’ble Court in its judgment 2012 (II) OLR-23 allowed the benefit of UGC scale of pay to the demonstrators appointed prior to 01.01.1986 i.e. the Laboratory Assistants re- designated as Demonstrator.” 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner in the present Writ Petition while Page 14 of 18 // 15 // continuing under the University, he was declared as a Demonstrator (Non-Teaching) w.e.f. 01.01.1985 vide office order dated 01.08.1989 under Annexure-1. Basing on the circular issued by the Department of Higher Education on 10.04.1989 under Annexure-D/2 series, petitioner vide office order dated 21.04.1990 under Annexure-9 was declared as Teaching Staff of the University. 6.1. On the face of such declaration made by the University by treating the petitioner as a Demonstrator w.e.f. 1.1.1985and continuing against a Teaching Post in terms of order under Annexure-9, when benefit of UGC Scale of Pay was not extended in his favour in terms of the order passed by this Court in the case of General Secretary as cited (supra), petitioner claiming the said benefit approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.15459 of 2016. When this Court directed the University to consider the petitioner’s claim in the light of the decision in the case of General Secretary, petitioner and similarly situated Demonstrators were extended with the benefit of UGC Scale of Pay working under the University vide a common order issued on dated 06.04.2021 under Annexure-5. 6.2. However, without following the Principle of Natural Justice and without assigning any reason the benefit extended vide order dated 06.04.2001 was Page 15 of 18 // 16 // cancelled vide order dated 24.09.2021 under Annexure-6 and subsequently confirmed vide order dated 11.02.2022 under Annexure-8. This Court finds that the University by taking a plea that the petitioner was not holding the post of Demonstrator as on 01.01.1986 and he has not reached the Basic Pay of Rs.2700/- as on 01.01.1986, held him ineligible to get the benefit. 6.3. This Court placing reliance on the orders issued under Annexure-1 and 9, is of the view that petitioner was holding the post of Demonstrator w.e.f. 01.01.1985 and the said post was also treated as a Teaching Post w.e.f. 01.01.1985 basing on the general circular issued by the Govt. on 10.04.1989 under Annexure-D/2 series. Therefore, the stand taken by the University that petitioner was holding a Non-teaching post and he was not holding the post of Demonstrator as on 01.01.1986, as per the considered view of this Court is not acceptable. 6.4. With regard to the stand taken by the University that the petitioner has not reached the Basic Pay of Rs.2700/- as on 01.01.1986, is also not acceptable, in view of the Scale of Pay allowed under ORSP Rules, 1985 to the post of Demonstrator w.e.f. 01.01.1986 as found from Annexure-11 and 12. Since the post of Demonstrator was allowed with the Scale of Pay of Page 16 of 18 // 17 // Rs.1740-3000/- under ORSP Rule 1985, making it effective from 01.01.1986, to have the Basic Pay of Rs.2600/- as on 01.01.1986 is not feasible nor practicable. It is also found that similar Demonstrators working under Utkal University with similar Scale of Pay were extended with the benefit of UGC Scale of Pay basing on the order passed in the case of General Secretary. Not only that UGC in the counter affidavit has also admitted that petitioner is eligible to get the benefit of UGC Scale of Pay. 6.5. In that view of the matter, the ground on which the benefit has been cancelled vide order dated 24.09.2021 under Annexure-6 and further upheld vide order dated 11.02.2022 under Annexure-8 in the present Writ Petition, as per the considered view of this Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dated 24.09.2021 and further order passed on 11.02.2022 under Annexure-6 and 8 and upheld the order dated 06.04.2001 so issued under Annexure-5. While quashing order dated 24.09.2021 and 11.02.2022 so passed under Annexure-6 and 8, this Court upheld the initial order passed by the University on 06.04.2021 under Annexure-5. Accordingly, this Court directs the University to extend the benefit of UGC Scale of Pay in favour of the petitioner in terms of order dated Page 17 of 18 // 18 // 06.04.2021 so issued under Annexure-5. This Court directs the University to continue with the benefit in terms of order dated 06.04.2021 and arrear differential entitlements be also released in favour of the petitioner. This Court directs the University-O.P. Nos.2 and 3 to complete the entire exercise within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The Writ Petition stand disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Aug-2025 13:18:01 Page 18 of 18