CHITTARANJAN NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition involves the following prayer :-

(2.) Short background involving the case is that the petitioner was a Post Graduate Teacher in Economics in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan. While continuing in K.V.No.1 (Army), Jodhpur, Rajasthan, his job was confirmed with effect from 6.9.2004. While continuing in K.V.No.1 at Itanagar of Arunachal Pradesh, the petitioner did his PH.D. in Economics from Utkal University and he was awarded with PH.D. in January, 2008. Coming across the advertisement no. 3748 dated 2.9.2008 issued by the Ravenshaw University asking for applications for the post of Lecturers subsequently re-designated as Assistant Professor, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor with due permission from his Employer. O.P.3, Vice-Chancellor, Ravenshaw University in his Office Letter dated 30.11.2009 issued appointment order, vide Annexure-1. It is contended that for the conditions in the U.G.C. Regulation and for initial appointment in the Ravenshaw University, the petitioner was not only entitled to pay protection considering his previous service but he was also entitled to number of increments as prescribed in the U.G.C. Regulation. For not being granted the increment in terms of Clause-9.1 of the U.G.C. Regulation, the petitioner approached the University. For no action from the side of the University involving the above, the petitioner moved the Vice- Chancellor of the University. The University did not take any follow up action on the other hand in the meantime the Utkal University sought for a clarification from the State Government. The State Government, vide letter no.20625 dated 14.9.2015 issued clarification on payment of advance increment to the Lecturers with Ph.D. Degree in the State Universities thereby disclosing that for the old practice, persons of similar nature would be entitled to three advance increments at the time of entry into service. Such clarification being not worked out the petitioner sought for information through R.T.I. Act by communication dated 14.9.2016. The petitioner was intimated that the matter regarding grant of advance increment was pending consideration and as such, no information could be supplied. However, the petitioner was supplied with Government Resolution dated 30.12.1999. Clause 4.8 (a) of the Government Resolution deals with sanction of advance increment to the Lecturers having Ph.D. Degree at entry level. On the premises of Government Resolution dated 31.12.1999, vide Annexure-9 the petitioner while claiming to be entitled to at least the minimum four advance increments, contended that similarly situated persons in the BPUT and VSSUT at Burla have been entitled to five additional advance increments following the U.G.C. Regulation. Referring to Annexure-9/1 the petitioner contended that grant of advance increment has been illegally withdrawn in case of persons at entry level entitled to pay protection. Referring to the documents at Annexures-10 to 12 the petitioner contended that for grant of benefit under the U.G.C. Regulation to similarly situated employees in other Universities under the State Government, the petitioner alleged that there has been discrimination meted against the petitioner and the petitioner has been given a differential treatment, such action is not only contrary to the U.G.C. Regulation but also contrary to the benefits granted to the similarly situated persons working in other Universities under the same State Government.

(3.) Sri S.K.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the pleading involving the writ petition as well as the documents indicated herein above and taking this Court to the U.G.C. Regulation and the other clarifications from time to time appearing at Annexures-4, 7 and 9 contended that the petitioner has been discriminated so far as the entitlement of additional increment is concerned. Referring to two decisions of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4480/2018 (Governing Body of Laxminarayan Mahavidyalaya, Jamusuli and another vrs. State of Odisha and others) decided on 16.4.2018 and W.P.(C) No.16810/2016 (Sri Basudev Guru and others vrs. State of Odisha and others) decided on 18.12.2018, while claiming application of the above decisions to the petitioner's case, Sri Das requested this Court for allowing the prayer involving the writ petition. Sri Das, learned counsel for the petitioner also referring to the denial of the State Government, vide the impugned order, submitted that since the Resolution of the State Government has the authority of the Chancellor of the State, mere decision of the Deputy Secretary or the Secretary cannot override the decision of the Chancellor more particularly in absence of the authority of the Chancellor at least.