The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16916 of 2016 Shankar Kumar Panda …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate V.C., Sambalpur University, Burla and Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA Mr. S.K. Patri, Advocate for University CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 22.07.2025 46. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition was initially filed seeking a direction on the University to extend the pension and other pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner by allowing him Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-. But subsequently and after being allowed to amend the writ petition, the following prayer was made:- “It is, therefore prayed, that your Lordships graciously be pleased to: (i) Admit the Writ Application. (ii) Call for the records; // 2 // (iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions directing the opposite parties to release the final pension including all other arrear Pensionary/Retiral benefits as is due and admissible to the post of Placement Officer MBA in the University and further be pleased to direct the opposite parties to rectify the anomalies in the pay scale of the petitioner within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court. (iii-a) The Hon’ble Court be further pleased to issue appropriate order/orders, writ/writs, direction/directions, directing the opposite parties to compute/calculate the pensionary/retiral benefits of the petitioner as admissible to the post of Placement Officer (MBA) in Sambalpur University considering the past period of service of the petitioner with effect from 07.07.1986 till the petitioner was regularly appointed to the post of Placement Officer (MBA) in Sambalpur University along with all other consequential service benefits within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court. the addendum (iii-b) And further the Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the proceeding of the committee dtd.08.10.2021 thereto under Annexure-12/A and dtd.31.2.2021 under Annexure-12/B and direct the Opp. Parties-Sambalpur University to restore the TBA scale already sanctioned in favour of the petitioner dtd.02.08.2007 and 22.02.2007 under Annexure-5 and 9 respectively and to revise the pay of the petitioner in different pay revision rules so also the pension and to pay the differential arrears thereof with accrued interest @ 7% per annum within a stipulated period as deem fit and proper.” 4. It is contended that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Project Director in the department of Adult, Continuing Education and Extension of Sambalpur University vide order under Annexure-1. Petitioner thereafter vide communication dated 23.09.1989 under Annexure-2 was allowed to come under the pension Scheme. Page 2 of 13 // 3 // 4.1. It is however contended that while so continuing in terms of order of appointment issued on 07.07.1986, petitioner was terminated from his services vide order dated 31.03.2000 under Annexure-3A. On being so terminated, when petitioner moved the Chancellor of the University as well as the Govt. seeking his reinstatement, Govt. vide letters issued under Annexure-3 series on 12.05.2000 and subsequent letter dated 26.04.2002, requested the University to adjust the petitioner as against the post of Placement Officer and with an observation that the said post be allowed with protection of pay and prayer for Restoration/Rehabilitation benefit be effected retrospectively from the date of Termination/ Rehabilitation.
Legal Reasoning
4.2. It is contended that in terms of the request made by the petitioner coupled with the letters issued by the Govt. in the department of Higher Education on 12.05.2000 and 26.04.2002 under Annexure-3 series, petitioner was adjusted against the post of Placement Officer MBA vide order dated 03.11.2003 under Annexure-3C. It is contended that after being so adjusted as against the post of Placement Officer, the University taking into account the date of appointment of the petitioner as 07.07.1986, allowed the TBA Scale of Pay in his favour w.e.f. 07.07.2001 in the scale of Page 3 of 13 // 4 // pay of Rs.8000-275-13500/- vide order dated 02.08.2007 under Annexure-5. 4.3. It is contended that taking into account the scale of pay allowed after extending the benefit of TBA w.e.f. 07.07.2001 vide order dated 02.08.2007, petitioner though became eligible to get the Revised Scale of Pay with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- but the University vide order dated 08.05.2013 under Annexure-7, allowed Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- in the Scale of Pay of Rs.9300- 34800/-. 4.4. It is contended that taking into account the scale of pay allowed while allowing the benefit of TBA, petitioner became eligible to get the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- but the University when allowed the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- vide order dated 08.05.2013 under Annexure-7, petitioner raised is claim to get the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- by making repeated approach before the University. 4.5. It is contended that on the face of such approach being made, no decision was taken either way and in the meantime, petitioner was allowed to retire from his services on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2015. After such retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. 30.04.2015, pension and other pensionary benefits was calculated taking into account his period of service from 04.11.2003 to 30.04.2015 an the past Page 4 of 13 // 5 // period of service from 07.04.1986 to 21.03.2000 was never taken into consideration as pensionable service. 4.6. It is also contended that claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- was also not decided with passing of a reasoned order by the University. Accordingly the Writ Petition was filed with a prayer to direct the University to pay the pension and other pensionary benefits by taking his Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- and by treating the period of service from 07.10.1986 to 31.03.2000 as pensionable service in addition to the period of service rendered from 04.11.2003 to 30.04.2015. 4.7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the University allowed the benefit of TBA, by taking the initial appointment of the petitioner as 07.07.1986, there was no occasion on the part of the University to treat the period of qualifying service while calculating the benefit of pension w.e.f. 04.11.2003 to 30.04.2015. 4.8. It is also contended that taking into account the communications made by the State Govt. on 12.05.2000 and 26.04.2002, the period of service from 07.07.1986 to 31.03.2000 should have been protected and the said period should have been taken as pensionable service. But the University never took a decision by considering the genuine grievance of the Page 5 of 13 // 6 // petitioner. It is however contended that, during pendency of the Writ Petition, the University suo-moto cancelled order dated 27.02.2007, whereby the petitioner was allowed the benefit of TBA w.e.f. 07.07.2001 vide order dated 31.12.2021 basing on the decision taken in the proceeding of the meeting dated 08.10.2021 under Annexure-12A and 12B. 4.9. It is contended that since petitioner on being found eligible was extended with the benefit of TBA scale w.e.f. 07.07.2001 vide order dated 27.02.2007 under Annexure-9 and pay fixation was made accordingly vide order dated 02.08.2007 under Annexure-7, the same could not have been withdrawn after more than 14 years without following the principle of natural justice. 4.10. It is accordingly contended that the cancellation of the benefit so made by the University vide order dated 31.12.2021 basing on the decision of the committee dated 08.10.2021 under Annexure-12A and 12B requires interference of this Court. 4.11. A further submission was also made that petitioner’s period of service from 07.07.1986 to 31.03.2000 be taken as pensionable service with sanction of grade pay of Rs.5400/-. Page 6 of 13 // 7 // 5. Mr. S.K. Patri, learned counsel appearing for the University on the other hand contended that petitioner initially was appointed as a Project Officer in the department of Adult, Continuing Education and Extension of Sambalpur University under a Scheme so implemented by the UGC. Petitioner was allowed to continue basing on the fund provided by the UGC as against the said post. However, when the fund so provided by the UGC was stopped, petitioner was terminated from his services vide order dated 31.03.2000 under Annexure-1/G. 5.1. Subsequently, petitioner was appointed as against a new post i.e. Placement Officer MBA vide order dated 04.11.2003 under Annexure-3/C. While so continuing as a Placement Officer in terms of order dated 04.11.2003, petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2015. Since petitioner was appointed as against a new post on 04.11.2003 and he retired while continuing as against the said post on 30.04.2015, the University calculated the qualifying service of the petitioner for the period from 04.11.2000 to 30.04.2015 for the purpose of pension. 5.2. By taking the qualifying service for the aforesaid period, petitioner has been extended with the benefit of pension as due and admissible to him. It is also contended that since the petitioner for the period from Page 7 of 13 // 8 // 07.07.1986 to 31.03.2000 was continuing under the Scheme so funded by the UGC, that period cannot be taken as the qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other pensionary benefits. 5.3. It is further contended that since petitioner was wrongly allowed the benefit of TBA by taking his date of appointment as 07.07.1986 vide order dated 27.02.2007 under Annexure-9 with fixation of the scale of pay vide order dated 02.08.2007 under Annexure-7, the University on coming across such wrong committed by it, constituted a committee to decide the eligibility of the petitioner to get the said benefit. In terms of the decision taken by the Committee in its proceeding dated 08.10.2021 under Annexure-12A, the benefit extended vide order dated 27.02.2007 was revoked vide order dated 31.12.2021. 5.4. It is contended that since the University found that the benefit of TBA has been wrongly extended in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 27.02.2007 by taking his initial appointment as 07.07.1986, no illegality or irregularity can be found with such revocation of the order vide order dated 31.12.2021 and that too basing on the decision taken by the committee in its proceeding dated 08.10.2021. 5.5. A further submission was also made that to consider the grievance made by the petitioner in the Page 8 of 13 // 9 // present Writ Petition, though Hon’ble Chancellor was moved by the University vide letter dated 05.07.2016 under Annexure-1/G, but no decision has yet been communicated in that regard and accordingly the University is not in a position to take a final decision on the claim of the petitioner for treating the period of service from 07.07.1986 to 31.03.2000 as pensionable service. 5.6. It is accordingly contended that unless and until request made vide letter dated 05.07.2016 under Annexure-1/G is duly considered by the State Govt. in the department of Higher Education, the University is not in a position to consider the petitioner’s claim. 6. In spite of notice, no counter affidavit has been filed by the State. However, it is contended that since the University has never moved the Govt. to consider petitioner’s grievance, there was no occasion on the part of the State to take any decision. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner was initially appointed as a Project Officer in the department of Adult, Continuing Education and Extension of Sambalpur University vide office order dated 07.07.1986 under Annexure-1. As found from letter dated 23.09.1989, so issued by the Page 9 of 13 // 10 // University under Annexure-2, petitioner’s claim to come under the Pension Scheme was also allowed. 7.1. However, while so continuing vide order dated 31.03.2000 under Annexure-2A, petitioner was terminated due to closure of the Scheme so funded by the UGC. 7.2. On being so terminated, when petitioner moved the University as well as the Govt. seeking his reinstatement vide letter dated 12.05.2000 and 26.04.2002 under Annexure-3 series, Govt.-O.P. No.1 requested the University to adjust the petitioner against the post of Placement officer. Basing on the request made by the petitioner and the letters issued by the Govt. in the department of Higher Education, petitioner was adjusted as Placement Officer vide order dated 04.11.2003 under Annexure-3C. It is not disputed that during continuance of the petitioner as Placement Officer in terms of the order dated 04.11.2003, petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation and was made to retire on 30.04.2015. It is also not disputed that after such retirement of the petitioner by taking the qualifying service of the petitioner for the period 04.11.2003 to 30.04.2015, petitioner has been extended with the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits. Page 10 of 13 // 11 // 7.3. But as found from the record, after such reinstatement of the petitioner as Placement Officer vide order dated 27.02.2007, petitioner was extended with the benefit of TBA scale w.e.f. 07.07.2001 and that too by taking into account the initial date of appointment as 07.07.1986. After such extension of the benefit of TBA scale vide order dated 02.08.2007, petitioner when was allowed the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4600, petitioner taking into account the Notification issued by the Govt., raised his claim to get the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in place of Rs.4600/-. 7.4. As found, such claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- was never considered by the University with passing of an order either way till the petitioner was superannuated on 30.04.2015. After such retirement of the petitioner on 30.04.2015, when petitioner’s qualifying service was counted from 04.11.2003 to 30.04.2015 and the period from 07.07.1986 to 31.03.2000 was not considered, petitioner filed the present Writ Petition with a prayer to direct the University to treat the said period as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other pensionary benefits. But as found, no decision has been taken on such prayer of the petitioner as yet. Page 11 of 13 // 12 // 7.5. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- and to treat the period of service from 07.07.1986 to 31.03.2000 as qualifying service, requires consideration by the University. This Court accordingly directs the University to take a decision on the aforesaid claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and while taking such decision, relevancy and effect of the communication made by the Govt. on 12.05.2000 and 26.04.2002 under Annexure- 3 series be taken into consideration in its proper perspective. 7.6. This Court however is inclined to quash the order dated 31.12.2021 and so also the decision taken by the Committee in its proceeding dated 08.10.2021 under Annexure-12A and 12B so far as it relates to the cancellation of the benefit extended in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 27.02.2007 and the pay fixation made vide order dated 02.08.2007 under Annexure-7. This Court directs the University to take a fresh decision with regard to extension of the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- and the period of service from 07.07.1986 to 31.03.2000 as qualifying service within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of this order. If the University requires any clarification from the Govt., it is open for the University to take advice of the Govt. and Govt. is also requested to give the reply if Page 12 of 13 // 13 // any request is made. O.P. No.1 is also directed to take a call on the request made by the University under Annexure-1/4 within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
Decision
Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 05-Aug-2025 18:56:20 Page 13 of 13