CAPTAIN SS BISHT Vs. INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of the office orders of the respondent No.1 University (IGNOU) rejecting the representation of the petitioner for grant of basic pay protection and seeks a writ of mandamus for protection of his basic pay and a direction for payment of the differential amounts.

(2.) The facts, as emerge from the undisputed documents are not in dispute. The respondent No.1 IGNOU constituted a Selection Committee for selection of a candidate for the post of Security Officer in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000. The said Selection Committee held a meeting on 26th April, 1990. As per the minutes of the said meeting, out of the panel of seven officers received for the post of Security Officer from the Directorate General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence, four officers who had retired from service and whose bio-data was available were called for interview and out of which only two attended. The Committee interviewed the candidates and recommended the petitioner for appointment to the post of Security Officer. In the said Minutes of the Meeting, under the column "Basic Pay Recommended" it is mentioned "Pay protection as per rules." The said minutes were approved on 30th April, 1990 by the Vice Chancellor of the respondent IGNOU.

(3.) The file noting dated 22nd May, 1990 of the Administrative Section of the respondent No.1 IGNOU shows that at that time there was no post of Security Officer in the respondent IGNOU but feeling the need for providing effective security at the campus of the respondent University, it was agreed that the pay of the said Security Officer would be met against one of the vacant posts of Assistant Registrars till the post of Security Officer was created on a regular basis by the Finance Committee and a proposal wherefor was pending. The office noting of 1st June, 1990 is as under:- "The Selection Committee recommendations are "Pay protection as per rules." On production of the last pay drawn by Captain Bisht in the Defence Services, the pay will be protected please". There is nothing to indicate that the aforesaid did not have the sanction of the decision makers in the respondent No.1 IGNOU.