The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.24254 of 2022 Sujogya Mishra ..... Petitioner Mr. S. Behera, Advocate -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Registrar, Odisha University And Technology And Research ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 10.04.2024 Order No. 05 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S. Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State- Opposite Party No.1 and Mr. S. Palit, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Opposite Party No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that vide order dated 01.09.2014 under Annexure-1, Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer on contractual basis in the establishment of Opposite Party No.2 with monthly remuneration of Rs.15,600/-. 4. It is further contended that the monthly remuneration of the Petitioner was enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- and it was further enhanced to Rs.35,000/- for candidates with having PH.D qualification. Page 1 of 5. 4.1. It is further contended that vide notification dated 19.11.2019, the monthly remuneration was further enhanced to Rs.35,000/- in respect of contractual teachers with having M. Tech Degree and to Rs.40,000/- for contractual faculty / Resource Persons having Ph.d qualification. 4.2. It is contended that while the Petitioner is continuing as a Lecturer on contractual basis, Government in the Department of Skill Development and Technical Education vide notification dated 07.12.2021 under Annexure-3 decided to revise the remuneration of contractual faculty with M. Tec Degree to Rs.50,000/- per month and additional incentives of Rs.5,000/- per month to such contractual employees with having Ph.D degree in the respective discipline. 4.3. Mr. Behera, contended that the benefit of notification issued by the Government under Annexure-3 was duly extended by the University vide office order dated 12.02.2022 under Annexure-4. But when Government-Opposite Party No.1 issued the communication dated 27.06.2022 under Annexure-6 by issuing certain clarification for implementation of the notification dated 07.12.2021 under Annexure-3, Opposite Party No.2 without proper appreciation of the same stopped the enhanced remuneration so allowed vide order dated 12.02.2022. 4.4. It is contended that since the clarification issued by the Government under Annexure-6 is with regard to Guest Faculties and in the said clarification, it was clarified that the some of the universities since are giving the enhanced benefit in terms of Annexure-3 in favour of Guest Faculties and persons other than M. Tech. and Ph.D holders, it was clarified that such benefit is not to be Page 2 of 5. extended in favour of such guest faculty and persons not having M.Tech and Ph. D holder. 4.5. It is contended that though the Petitioner is not covered by the clarification issued under Annexure-6 but by misinterpreting the same, Opposite Party No.4 has stopped the payment so allowed vide office order dated 12.02.2022 under Annexure-4. It is accordingly contended that necessary direction be issued to Opposite Party No.2 to continue with the benefit as has been ordered vide order dated 12.02.2022 under Annexure-4. 5. Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter filed by Opposite Party No.2. It is contended that even though Opposite Party No.1 vide notification dated 07.12.2021 under Annexure-3 revised the remuneration for M. Tech Degree holders to Rs.50,000/- per month and another Rs.5,000/- as an incentives in respect of contractual employees with having Ph. D degree, but since some of the Universities extended the said benefit in favour of Guest Faculty, the clarification was issued under Annexure-6. However, it is contended that the claim of the Petitioner and similarly situated persons for getting the benefit under Annexure-3 is under active consideration of the Department and no conclusive decision has been taken. 6. Mr. Palit, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 on the other hand made his submissions basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that even though the University pursuant to the notification issued under Annexure-3 extended the benefit of revised remuneration in favour of the Page 3 of 5. Petitioner, but in view of the clarification issued by the Government under Annexure-6, the same has been stopped. 6.1. It is contended that the Opposite Party No.2 is bound by the order/clarification issued by the Government from time to time and no fault has been committed by the University in not continuing with the benefit so extended in favour of the Petitioner vide Annexure-4. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that the Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer on contractual basis vide office order dated 01.09.2014 under Annexure-1 and vide different notifications issued, Petitioner’s monthly remuneration as a contractual faculty was enhanced from time to time. By notification dated 07.12.2021 under Annexure-3, Petitioner being a Ph.d holder and a contractual faculty monthly remuneration was revised to Rs.50,000/- and additional incentives of Rs.5,000/- was also extended vide office order dated 12.02.2022 of Opposite Party No.2. 7.1.This Court after going through the notification issued under Annexure-6 finds that the said notification is not applicable to the case of contractual faculty as like the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.2 on misconception and misinterpreting Annexure-6 stopped the benefit so extended in terms of Annexure-4 in favour of the Petitioner. Since Annexure-6 relates to extension of the benefit by some of the Universities in favour of the Guest Faculty and the Petitioner being a contractual faculty the said clarification is no way applicable to the case of the present petitioner. While holding so, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition with a direction on the Opposite Party No.2 to continue with benefit so extended in favour of the Petitioner vide order dated 12.02.2022. Opposite Party No.2 is Page 4 of 5. directed to make the payment of the revised pay so fixed under Annexure-4 along with the arrear entitlement in favour of the Petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Sneha ( BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Apr-2024 13:30:24 Page 5 of 5.