2003 JTR(SC) 403
2003 5 AIC 16 ; 2003 97 FLR 562 ; 2003 3 LLN 24 ; 2003 3 Scale 636 ; 2003 4 SCC 760 ; 2003 SCC(L&S) 598 ; 2003 3 SCR 344 ; 2003 2 SCT 1013 ; 2003 2 SLJ 320 ; 2003 KHC 996 ; 2003 3 Supreme 215
2003(3) Supreme 215
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Orissa High Court)
Shivaraj V. Patil & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Utkal University & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Jyotirmayee Nayak & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 13415 of 1996
Decided on 2-4-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Vinoo Bhagat, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Direction of High Court to give regular pay salary to employees appointed on consolidated pay is not tenable in the facts of the case.
Act Referred :SERVICE JURISPRUDENCE : .
(A) The referenced acts pertain to service jurisprudence governing regularisation and salary parity for employees in university settings. The statutory framework evaluates appointment orders, consolidated salary terms, and subsequent office orders to determine entitlements to regular pay scales and arrears for employees classified similarly within the university. The analysis focuses on reconciling written appointment terms with administrative directions to ascertain legal rights and obligations under service rules.
(B) Key principles include that mere reference to payment as per rules in an office order cannot confer regular employee status without formal appointment orders; consolidated initial salaries do not automatically attract parity with regular university employees; and courts will not direct salary parity absent clear contractual or statutory basis. Additionally, termination of services renders academic the question of regularisation.
Facts of the case:
The respondents served as Library Assistants and Attendants in a university's seminar library and filed writ petitions seeking regularisation and salary on par with similarly placed regular employees. The High Court rejected regularisation but directed payment of salary at par with comparable university employees. The appellants challenged this direction, citing appointment letters specifying a consolidated salary and an office order referencing rule-based payment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondents lacked appointment orders establishing eligibility for a regular pay scale. The office order of 2.12.1994, read in isolation, was insufficient to create such entitlement. The direction for parity salary was set aside as unsustainable. The respondents did not challenge the High Court's rejection of their regularisation claims.
Issues:
Whether an office order mentioning rule-based salary can override inconsistent appointment terms; whether salary parity can be mandated without formal appointment; and whether the question of regularisation remains live after termination of service.
Ratio Decidendi:
Without formal appointment orders specifying a regular pay scale, employees cannot claim parity with regular university staff. An ambiguous office order reading 'draw salary accordingly as per rules' does not create enforceable rights to parity, and courts will not imply such entitlements from administrative directions alone.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The impugned direction for payment of salary as admissible to similarly placed employees is set aside. No costs awarded.
(A) The referenced acts pertain to service jurisprudence governing regularisation and salary parity for employees in university settings. The statutory framework evaluates appointment orders, consolidated salary terms, and subsequent office orders to determine entitlements to regular pay scales and arrears for employees classified similarly within the university. The analysis focuses on reconciling written appointment terms with administrative directions to ascertain legal rights and obligations under service rules.
(B) Key principles include that mere reference to payment as per rules in an office order cannot confer regular employee status without formal appointment orders; consolidated initial salaries do not automatically attract parity with regular university employees; and courts will not direct salary parity absent clear contractual or statutory basis. Additionally, termination of services renders academic the question of regularisation.
Facts of the case:
The respondents served as Library Assistants and Attendants in a university's seminar library and filed writ petitions seeking regularisation and salary on par with similarly placed regular employees. The High Court rejected regularisation but directed payment of salary at par with comparable university employees. The appellants challenged this direction, citing appointment letters specifying a consolidated salary and an office order referencing rule-based payment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondents lacked appointment orders establishing eligibility for a regular pay scale. The office order of 2.12.1994, read in isolation, was insufficient to create such entitlement. The direction for parity salary was set aside as unsustainable. The respondents did not challenge the High Court's rejection of their regularisation claims.
Issues:
Whether an office order mentioning rule-based salary can override inconsistent appointment terms; whether salary parity can be mandated without formal appointment; and whether the question of regularisation remains live after termination of service.
Ratio Decidendi:
Without formal appointment orders specifying a regular pay scale, employees cannot claim parity with regular university staff. An ambiguous office order reading 'draw salary accordingly as per rules' does not create enforceable rights to parity, and courts will not imply such entitlements from administrative directions alone.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The impugned direction for payment of salary as admissible to similarly placed employees is set aside. No costs awarded.
ORDER
Not satisfied with and aggrieved by the order dated 9.11.1995, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, this appeal is filed, calling in question the correctness and validity of the directions given to the appellants to pay salary to the respondents as admissible to similarly placed employees of the University, including their arrears.
2. The respondents were serving as Library Assistants and Library Attendants in the Seminar Library of the Centre for Advanced Study in Psychology, Post-graduate Department, Utkal University. They filed writ petitions seeking directions to the appellants to treat them as regular employees and pay them salary on par with the similarly placed employees working in the University on regular basis. The High Court while rejecting the contentions of the respondents for regularisation of their services, gave direction to the appellants to pay salary to the respondents as admissible to similar employees of the University.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out to letters of appointment of the respondents to the effect that their appointments were made on a consolidated salary of Rs.600/- and Rs.400/- per month, initially and subsequently on the same terms and conditions but increasing the amount to Rs.1000/- per month. In the absence of any appointment order appointing the respondents on regular pay-scale, the respondents were not entitled to any regular pay scale as was admissible to the similarly placed employees of the University. According to the learned counsel, merely looking to the office order dated 2.12.1994, wherein reference is made to appointment orders but it is said that they shall draw their salary accordingly as per rules, they were not entitled for salary as per regular pay-scale. Learned counsel also pointed out to subsequent order dated 16.1.1995, in which it is stated that the consolidated remuneration of Rs.1000/- per month was to be paid; mere reference to the payment as per rules in the order dated 2.12.1994 cannot be read in isolation.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondents relying on the office order dated 2.12.1994, submitted that the order passed by the High Court is perfectly valid and sustainable. The learned counsel also brought to our notice that subsequent to the passing of the impugned order the services of the respondents were terminated and challenging the order of termination of their services they have filed separate writ petitions which are pending before disposal in the High Court.
5. Under these circumstances, the question of regularisation of services of the respondents does not survive. At any rate the High Court was right in rejecting their claims for regularisation and the respondents have not challenged the same by filing any appeal against that order. As regards the direction for payment of salary on par with the similarly placed employees in the University, we find it difficult to sustain the direction given by the High Court. It is not disputed that the respondents do not have any appointment orders on the basis of which they could claim pay-scales or a regular salary. Except the office order dated 2.12.1994, there is nothing to support the claims of the respondents for payment of salary as is admissible to the regular employees of the University. One sentence in the order dated 2.12.1994, that the respondents could "draw their salary accordingly as per rules", cannot give any right to them. That sentence cannot be read in isolation. The said office order must be understood in the light of the appointment orders issued to the respondents.
6. In this view, we have no hesitation to set aside the direction given by the High Court to the effect that the respondents are entitled to salary as admissible to the similarly placed employees of the University. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order, so far as it relates to giving direction in regard to payment of salary, is set aside. No costs.
(N.K.R.) Appeal allowed.
***************
Parallel Citations of other Jouranals :
Utkal University & Anr. v. Jyotiramayee Nayak & Ors., 2003(3) Supreme 215 : 2003(97) FLR 562 : 2003 LLR 529 : 2003(4) SCC 760 : 2003(2) SLJ 320 : 2003(3) LLN 24 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 598 : 2003(4) ACE 362 : 2003(2) SCSLJ 249 : 2003(7) SBR 363.
00030