GANESH CHANDRA BEHERA Vs. BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Of the two writ petitions, as mentioned above, W.P.(C) No. 29460 of 2011, in which petitioners are two in number, has been filed for the following relief:-

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioners were appointed as Junior Assistants in Berhampur University and were continuing as such. Due to a resolution passed by the syndicate, the posts of nine employees of the University, those who were senior to the petitioners and continuing as Junior Assistant, were upgraded to Senior Assistant subject to approval from the Chancellor and the Government. But such approval having been refused, the Chancellor passed order reverting back those upgraded Senior Assistants to the post of Junior Assistant. In the meantime, due to vacancies created on retirement of employees, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. The employees, who were reverted back to the post of Junior Assistant, challenged their reversion before this Court by filing W.P.(C) Nos. 12854, 11368, 12562, 12564 and 12566 of 2007. This Court disposed of those writ petitions, vide common order dated 04.08.2011, upholding the order of reversion and directed that they would be placed and adjusted in the gradation list where they were placed earlier on the date of up-gradation. It was further directed that if any consequential benefits accrued to them from the date of up-gradation to the date of reversion, the same would be conferred on them in accordance with the rules governing the field and they would also be entitled to higher salary without any recovery during the material period. In compliance of the said order, the University conducted review DPC and the employees, who were reverted to the post of Junior Assistants, along with the petitioners, their cases were considered and all of them were promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. Therefore, the petitioners have claimed in these writ applications that their scale of pay should be protected, as they have worked in the promotional post during relevant period and discharged their duties in the higher post of Senior Assistant.

(3.) Mr. J. Pattnaik, learned Senior counsel appearing along with Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though several questions have been raised in these writ applications, he confined the prayer only to the extent that the benefits of promotion which had been granted to the petitioners from 1998 till 2008, by following DPC, and financial benefits and other benefits, which have been received by the petitioners, should not be curtailed, rather the same should be protected as these petitioners have already got promotion by way of a review DPC held by the University in compliance of order passed by this Court on 04.08.2011 in W.P.(C) Nos. 12854, 11368, 12562, 12564 and 12566 of 2007. It is further contended that the petitioners have claimed in these writ applications that the scale of pay against the post of Senior Assistant w.e.f. 22.12.1998 including all the benefits may be protected so that no prejudice will be caused to them, and that even if such a prayer has not been made in express manner, this Court can in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India mould the relief taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case, in hand.