N JAGADEESH Vs. KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT-UNIVERSITY issued an advertisement on 3-12-1992 calling for applications to fill several posts through direct recruitment which included two posts of "draftsman and Tracer" in the pay-scale of Rs. 1720-3170. The petitioner was one of the applicants for the said post. He was appointed to the said post as per the order dated 1-8-1994 in the pay-scale of Rs. 1130-2100. Petitioner has accepted the appointment order and joined the service. Later on, he made a representation to the University to increase his pay-scale to Rs. 1720-3170 as per the advertisement or at least in the scale of Rs. 1520-2900, as was paid in other Universities for the similar post. The University on consideration of the said representation passed an order dated 18-3-1996 fixing the pay-scale at Rs. 1520-2900. Later on, the University has reduced the pay-scale to Rs. 1130-2100 and initiated action for recovery of excess amount paid to him by an order dated 24-11-1999. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in w. P. No. 43017 of 1999. This Court by an order dated 2-11-2000 quashed the said order and directed the University to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. Thereafter, the university has issued a show-cause notice on 27-11-2000 calling upon the petitioner as to why his pay-scale should not be reduced from 1520-2900 to 1130-2100 and the excess amount paid to him should not be recovered. The petitioner has sent replies to the said notice as per Annexure-E, dated 9-12-2000 and Annexure-G, dated 14-6-2002. After considering the replies and after hearing the petitioner, the University has passed the impugned order dated 11-7-2002 holding that the petitioner is entitled for pay-scale of Rs. 1130-2100. The University has further directed the petitioner to refund the excess amount paid to him in a sum of Rs. 78,592/- in terms of earlier order dated 18-3-1996. The petitioner has challenged the said order of the University in this writ petition.

(2.) MR. M. S. Bhagwat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that petitioner is entitled for the pay-scale as advertised on 3-12-1992 at Rs. 1720-3170. He further submits that at least University ought to have fixed the pay-scale of Rs. 1520-2900, as was paid in other universities for the similar post. He further argues that the University is estopped from in reducing the pay-scale to Rs. 1130-2100 as it is contrary to the pay-scale advertised as per annexure-A. Alternatively, he contends that the excess payment received by the petitioner is not on account of his misrepresentation. Therefore, the University is not justified in recovering the excess amount of Rs. 78,592/ -. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the decisions of the apex Court in the cases of Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [1994 (68 )FLR812 ], JT1994 (1 )SC 574 , (1994 )I LLJ815 SC , 1994 (1 )SCALE469 , (1994 )2 SCC521 , [1994 ]1 SCR700 , 1994 (2 )SLJ99 (SC ), 1994 (1 )UJ797 (SC ), (1994 )1 UPLBEC521 and Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC (L and S) 248.

(3.) ON the other hand, Sri T. P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-University submits that as per the relevant statute of the University the pay-scale for the aforesaid post was Rs, 1040-1900 when Annexure-A was issued. Subsequently, when the petitioner was appointed the pay-scale was revised at Rs. 1130-2100 and the pay-scale of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 1130-2100 when he was appointed which is in accordance with the statute of the University. It is further argued that the respondent-University is an autonomous body and it is not free to act according to whims and fancies of the individuals. Since the university is governed by the statute, ordinance and regulations, the pay-scale cannot be granted higher than what has been fixed in the statute. It is submitted that the concerned Assistant registrar had committed an error while advertising the post in the pay-scale of Rs. 1720-3170. It is further contended that the petitioner having accepted the order of appointment and joined the post, he cannot raise the plea of estoppel at this belated stage. Learned Counsel has justified the action initiated by the University for recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner in a sum of rs. 78,592/- in installments.