The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.17997 of 2023 ..... Basudev Barik Petitioner Mr. K.K. Rath, Advocate -versus- ..... Vice Chancellor, Utkal University of Culture, BBSR & Ors. CORAM: Opposite Parties Mr. S. Rath, ASC THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 29.08.2024 Order No. 11 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. K.K. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State. None appeared for the Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3 when the matter was called. 3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging order dtd.23.12.2022 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-8.
Legal Reasoning
No. 3, Petitioner claiming the said benefit approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 23570 of 2022 for the period from 01.10.2017 to 20.08.2022. This Court vide order dtd.20.09.2022 when directed Opp. Party No. 2 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner, but the same was rejected vide the impugned office order dtd.23.12.2022 under Annexure-8. 4.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner was engaged vide Notification dtd.08.09.2017 in terms of the Finance Department Memorandum issued on 07.04.2016 and resolution issued by the G.A. Department on 27.08.2014 under Annexure-2, Petitioner became eligible to get the enhanced remuneration in terms of the office memorandum issued by the Finance Department on 17.03.2018 under Annexure-5. In terms of Annexure-5, the enhanced remuneration was made applicable w.e.f.01.10.2017. Since Petitioner was allowed to continue till 20.08.2022 in terms of office order issued under Annexure-4, he became eligible to get the enhanced remuneration for the period from 01.10.2017 to 20.08.2022. Page 2 of 6. 4.4. Even though this Court directed Opp. Party No. 2 to consider his claim, but the same was rejected without proper appreciation of the office memorandum issued by the Finance Department on 17.03.2018 under Annexure-5. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Even though a counter affidavit has been filed by Opp. Party No. 2 justifying the rejection, but nobody appeared on behalf of Opp. Party No. 2 when the matter was called and nobody was also there when the matter was taken up by this Court on 16.07.2024. 6. This Court after going through the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No. 2, finds that pursuant to the advertisement issued by Opp. Party No. 2 on 22.08.2017 under Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, Petitioner was engaged as Officer on Special Duty for a period of one year with consolidated remuneration of Rs.15,000/-. Such remuneration of Rs.15,000/- was fixed in terms of the office memorandum issued by the Finance Department on 07.04.2016 under Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. Even though the remuneration of Rs.15,000/- was enhanced to Rs.30,000/- vide office memorandum dtd.17.03.2018 under Annexure-5, but the said enhanced remuneration was not made applicable to the case of the Petitioner as Petitioner was a retired employee of the University and his pay was never revised as per ORSP Rules, 2017. 6.1. It is also found from the counter that though the remuneration of the Petitioner at Rs.15,000/- was fixed in terms of Finance Department Resolution dtd.07.04.2016 so annexed vide Annexure- B to the counter affidavit, but the Board of Management of the University in its meeting held on 15.10.2018 resolved to reduce the Page 3 of 6. remuneration from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.13,000/-. After taking such a decision vide Annexure-E & F to the counter affidavit, Opp. Party No. 3 was moved to issue necessary clarification in the matter vide letter dtd.06.11.2018. 6.2. It is also found from the counter so filed by Opp. Party No. 2 that after engagement of the Petitioner vide Notification dtd.08.09.2017 with consolidated remuneration of Rs.15,000/- per month, Petitioner when was issued with office order dtd.01.10.2021, similar remuneration of Rs.15,000/- was allowed in his favour and Petitioner never raised any such objection to work with consolidated remuneration of Rs.15,000/- per month. Not only that the Board of Management of the University in its resolution dtd.26.09.2019 though resolved to fix the consolidated remuneration prospectively on reengagement of retired Govt. employees as Officer on Special Duty in Utkal University of Culture taking the pay matrix as prescribed by the Finance Department on 17.03.2018 and to follow the pay matrix prescribed under ORSP Rules, 2017, but the said decision of the Board taken on 26.06.2019 was withdrawn vide Resolution dtd.27.06.2023 under Annexure-H to the counter affidavit. 7. Mr. S. Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 3 on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. It is contended that on receipt of the request from the University vide letter dtd.06.11.2018, Opp. Party No. 3 while issuing the clarification vide letter dtd.23.03.2019 under Annexure-A/3, observed that remuneration of retired Govt. servant engaged as OSD in Utkal University of Culture may be decided as per Finance Department Page 4 of 6. office Memorandum dtd.17.03.2018 and to follow the pay matrix under ORSP Rules, 2017. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner in terms of the advertisement issued by Opp. Party No. 2 on 22.08.2017 under Annexure-A to the counter affidavit for engagement of retired Govt. Servant as OSD in Utkal University of Culture, faced the selection process. In the advertisement issued under Annexure-A, the consolidated remuneration of Rs.15,000/- was made applicable, relying on the resolution issued by the G.A. Department on 27.08.2014 and Finance Department Memorandum dtd.07.04.2016 under Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. 8.1. During continuance of the Petitioner in terms of notification issued under Annexure-3, Finance Department while issuing office memorandum dtd.17.03.2018 under Annexure-5 enhanced the remuneration from 15,000/- to 30,000/- and made the same applicable w.e.f.01.10.2017. As found from the record on coming across office memorandum dtd.17.03.2018, Opp. Party No. 2 vide its letter dtd.06.11.2018 under Annexure-E to the counter affidavit sought for clarification from the Govt.. As found from Annexure- A/3 to the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No. 3, Opp. Party No. 3 on receipt of Annexure-E, clearly indicated that remuneration of retired Govt. servants engaged as OSD in Utkal University of Culture may be decided as per Finance Department Office Memorandum dtd.17.03.2018 and to follow the pay matrix under ORSP Rules, 2017. 8.2. In view of the stipulation contained in Finance Department office Memorandum dtd.07.04.2016 vis-à-vis 17.03.2018 and the Page 5 of 6. clarification issued by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure- A/3 to the counter affidavit to the clarification sought for by the University under Annexure-E, this Court is of the view that on the face of the clarification issued by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-A/3, claim of the Petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground indicated in the impugned order dtd.23.12.2022 under Annexure-8. 8.3. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash office order dtd.23.12.2022 so issued by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-8. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 2 to take a fresh decision taking into account office memorandum dtd.17.03.2018 so issued under Annexure-5 and the clarification issued by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-A/3 to the counter affidavit. Such a fresh decision as directed be taken within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. On such consideration if it is found that the Petitioner is eligible to get the benefit of enhanced remuneration for the period in question, consequential follow up action be taken to release the differential entitlement within the aforesaid time period.
Arguments
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner being a retired employee he was engaged as Officer on Special Duty for a period of one year by Opp. Party No. 3 vide notification dtd.08.09.2017 under Annexure-3. In the said notification name of the Petitioner finds place at Sl. No. 5. In terms of the said notification Petitioner also joined in his work. 4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that subsequent to such engagement in terms of notification dtd.08.09.2017, Govt. in the Finance Department vide office Memorandum dtd.17.03.2018 Page 1 of 6. under Annexure-5 though enhanced the remuneration of such retired Govt. employee on their reengagement to Rs.30,000/- from Rs.15,000/-, but the said enhanced remuneration was never released in favour of the Petitioner. It is also contended that Petitioner’s engagement was further renewed from time to time and last such renewal was issued vide office order dtd.12.08.2022 under Annexure-4. 4.2. It is contended that in terms of the office memorandum issued under Annexure-5 when the enhanced remuneration was not released for the period Petitioner worked in the office of Opp. Party
Decision
9. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Sep-2024 12:34:19 Page 6 of 6.