Back
2003(3) Supreme 426
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Orissa High Court)
Shivaraj V. Patil & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology and Anr. -Appellants
versus
Manoj K. Mohanty -Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 4210-4211 of 2000
Decided on 17-4-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Janaranjan Das, Gourang, Biswal and Swetaketu Mishra, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Shibashish Misra, Advocate for Debasis Misra, Advocate.
Held : The High Court before directing to give regular pay-scale to the respondent w.e.f. September, 1997 on the principle of equal pay for equal work did not examine the pleadings and facts of the case in order to appreciate whether the respondent satisfied the relevant requirements such as the nature of work done by him as compared to the nature of work done by the regularly appointed Junior Assistants, the qualifications, responsibilities etc. When the services of the respondent had not been regularized, his appointment was on temporary basis on consolidated pay and he had not undergone the process for regular recruitment, direction to give regular pay-scale could not be given that too without examining the relevant factors to apply the principle of equal pay for equal work . It is clear from the averments made in the writ petition extracted above, nothing is stated as regards the nature of work, responsibilities attached to the respondent without comparing to the regularly recruited Junior Assistants. It cannot be disputed that there was neither necessary averments in the writ petition nor any material was placed before the High Court so as to consider the application of principle of equal pay for equal work . (Para 10)
JUDGMENT
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-The respondent was appointed as a Typist against the vacancy of Junior Assistant on his application by the order dated 20.7.1990 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 530/- per month temporarily until further orders. His father was serving as a Lecturer in Statistics in the appellant-University. He died in harness on 27.6.1971. It is the further case of the respondent that although in the appointment order it was mentioned as Typist, he was working as Junior Assistant in the Examination Section of the College of Engineering and Technology; two certificates dated 4.12.1993 and 25.3.1996 were given to him by Dean which bear the testimony of his working as Junior Assistant, though he had been serving for more than five years, his services were not regularized, instead appellants absorbed some of his juniors; by the order dated 26-3-1996, he was appointed for a period of 59 days w.e.f. 27-3-1996 to 24. 5.1996 with a break of one day. Under the circumstances, he filed writ petition in the High Court seeking regularization of his services as a Junior Assistant w.e.f. 21.7.1990.
2. The appellants filed counter-affidavit in the High Court resisting his claim contending that he was not appointed on regular basis; he has to go through the process of recruitment test/interview and after he becomes successful, then only he can be appointed on regular basis.
3. The High Court observing that the respondent has been working as Junior Assistant since 21.7.1990 on a consolidated pay; the Dean of the College has certified that he is sincere and hard-working; he has served for more than five years and that posts of Junior Assistant are lying vacant, directed the appellants to take appropriate decision to consider the question of appointing him on regular basis. The High Court disposed of the writ petition on 11.9.1997 in the following terms:-
"6. In the result, by modifying the impugned order dated 26.3.1996 at Annexure-6, we direct that the petitioner may not be disengaged from service till appropriate decision is taken by the Opp. Parties. We pass this order in view of the admitted position that the post against which the petitioner has been continuing as Junior Assistant is available and the said post is also required for the purpose which necessitated petitioner s appointment. The opp. parties are further directed to pay the petitioner regular scale of pay admissible to Junior Assistant from the month of September, 1997.
7. The writ application is accordingly disposed. "
4. Aggrieved by the direction to pay the respondent regular scale of pay admissible to Junior Assistant from the month of September, 1997, the appellants filed a review application on 20.4.1998 seeking review of the order dated 11.9.1997 passed in the writ petition. The High Court dismissed the review application on 3.2.1999 observing that there was delay in filing the same and that no explanation was given for the delay in filing the review application, but the High Court proceeded to consider the merits of the contentions raised in greater details than the consideration made in the original order disposing of the writ petition. We are of the opinion that certain observations made while disposing of review petition were unnecessary and at any rats they cannot alter the legal position having impact and bearing on the facts of the case. Hence, aggrieved by the orders of the High Court made in the writ petition and review application, these appeals are filed challenging their correctness and validity.
5. This Court on 15.7.1999 issued notice confining it to the question as to whether the respondent was entitled to the grant of regular pay-scale w.e.f. September, 1997. In the meanwhile, the operation of the impugned order to the extent it directed the appellants to pay regular pay-scale w.e.f. September, 1997 was stayed.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the respondent was appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs. 530/- per month tem
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
