UTKAL UNIVERSITY AND ANR. versus JYOTIRMAYEE NAYAK AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 344 · Decided: 02-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UTKAL UNIVERSITY AND ANR. 
v. 
JYOTIRMA YEE NAY AK AND ORS. 
APRIL 2, 2003 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Claim for regular pay scale-Respondents employed as Library Assistants 
C and Library Altendan/s on a consolidated monthly salary-Later, claiming 
regularisation and regular pay scale on par with similarly placed regular 
employees-High Court allowing claim for similar pay scale but rejecting 
claim for regularisalion-Subsequenliy their services terminated-Held, under 
the circumstances, claim for regularisation does not survive-As regards,· 
D payment of salary on par with similarly placed regular employees, respondents 
do not have any appointment orders on the basis of which they could claim 
pay scale or a regular salary-One sentence in the Office order that respondents 
could 'draw their salary accordingly as per rules" cannot give any right to 
them. The sentence in the office order cannot be read in isolation-It must be 
read in the light of the appointment order issued to the respondents-Direction 
E of High Court to the effect that respondents are entitled to salary as admissible 
to similarly placed employees set aside-Regularisation. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal. No. 13415 of 
1996. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.11.95 of the Orissa High 
G 
Court in O.J.C. No. 1210 of 1995. 
Vinoo Bhagat for the Appellants. 
Shiv Sagar Tiwa'ri, for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
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 
H 
344 
r 
U-TKAL UNIVERSITY AND ANR. v. JYOTIRMAYEE NAY AK 
345 
to pay salary to the respondents as admissible to similarly placed employees A 
of the University, including their arrears. 
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 appellant to treat them as regular employees B 
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 
directions to the appellants to pay salary to the respondents as admissible 
to similar employees of the University. 
C 
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. I 000 per month. In the absence of any appointment order D 
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. E 
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. 
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 
F 
of their services they have filed separate writ petitions which are pending G 
before disposal in the High Court. 
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 regL1larisation and the respondents have not challenged 
the same by filing any apoeal against that order. As regards the directions fN H 
346 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003) 3 S.C.R. 
A 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.