IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.16703 of 2008 Date of Decision : September 20, 2010 K. C. Rana …Petitioner. Versus: Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Krishi Vishvavidyalaya & Ors. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “i) That the impugned orders dated 13.3.2001 vide Annexure A-19 approving the pay scale of Rs.3000- 4500 and the revised scale thereof of Rs.10000-15200 to the applicant, since his deputation till absorption and till today, may kindly be declared illegal and un- consequential and may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That the Respondent University may be directed to regulate the pay of the applicant in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700, instead of the pay in the lower scale of Rs.3000-4500, as per the orders passed by the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondent No.2 i.e. the Vice-Chancellor on 13.9.1995 and 21.9.1995 vide Annexures A-5 & A-7 and as per the option exercised on 14.9.1995 (A-6/A, as per the terms of deputation forthwith. iii) That the Respondent University may be directed to regulate the pay in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700 and the revised scale thereof of Rs.12000-18300, since the date of deputation on 24.4.1995 till today and to pay the arrear of pay and allowances accruing therefrom with interest @18% per annum till realisation forthwith. iv) In the alternative, the Respondent University may be directed to set up the pay at par with the pay of the respondent No.4-junior as mentioned in ground (c) of the OA in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700 and Rs.12000- 18300, on the principle of setting up of pay or parity of pay between the applicant-senior and the junior and to give the arrears thereof to the applicant forthwith.” 2. On 29.1.1994 respondents wrote to the Director General, Sports Authority of India (Annexure A-1), appreciating on record the services rendered by the petitioner in development of sports and other co- curricular activities in the respondent-University. The University was still at the stage of infancy and consequently desired to utilize his services further as he was on deputation as a Volleyball Coach for a period of one year. It appears that some correspondence was exchanged between the authorities from which it is evident that petitioner had expressed his willingness to be permanently absorbed as a Coach in the respondent- University as the then existing scale. 3 3. From the letter dated 16.3.1994 (Annexure A-2) addressed by the Dy. Director (Coaching), SAI, to the Registrar of the respondent- University, it is evident that petitioner was permitted to be placed on the basis of deputation for a period of one year subject to acceptance of terms and conditions, relevant portion of which reads as under:- “(2) Pay:- During the period of deputation Sh. K. C. Rana, will have the option either to get his pay fixed in the deputation post under the operation of the normal rules or to draw pay of the post held by him in the parent department plus a deputation (duty) allowance in accordance with and subject to the conditions, as modified from time to time and such other general or special orders issued by the Ministry of Finance.” 3. In terms of letter dated 17.2.1999 (Annexure A-3), the terms and conditions were accepted by the University and office order dated 17.2.1995 (Annexure A-4) was issued. 4. As a sequel to the aforesaid office order, respondents issued a letter dated 13.9.1995 (Annexure A-5), whereby the salary of the petitioner was ordered to be drawn against the vacant post of Dy. Students’ Welfare Officer in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700 (UGC). It cannot be disputed that petitioner had exercised his option in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700, which in any event is evident from letter dated 21.9.1995 (Annexure A-7). Further, from the intra departmental communication of the respondents-authorities, it is evident that petitioner’s pay was ordered to be drawn against the higher post of Dy. Students’ Welfare Officer in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700. 4 5. It appears that petitioner’s salary in the said pay scale was actually not disbursed hence he made representations and it was only in terms of office order dated 13.3.2001 (Annexure A-19) that respondents took a decision and that too with retrospective effect of fixing his pay in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 w.e.f. 1.5.1997. 6. Petitioner was happily working with the Sports Authority of India. On request he had been called to serve the University which he did to their satisfaction. He established the department and various facilities in the respondent-University. Only on their request did he come to serve the University. From the very beginning he had made it clear that he would be willing to work in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700. He gave up his posting only on such terms and conditions which were monetarily beneficial to him. Respondents authorities also took affirmative action in this regard. They ordered his salary to be drawn against the post which was in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700. In compliance of the terms and conditions petitioner also exercised his option. He continued to work under the hope and assurance of being awarded higher pay scale. It took the University more than 6 years to decide his representation. The State cannot be allowed to behave in this manner. They took best out of him and yet did not pay what was legitimately expected by him in terms of Annexure A-5. 7. Consequently, the action of the respondents in passing the office order dated 13.3.2001 is quashed. Petitioner is held entitled to pay scale of Rs.3700-5700. He shall also be entitled to all revised scales. 8. Respondents authorities are directed to take consequential action within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. It is clarified that arrears, if any, be also paid during 5 the aforesaid period, failing which, thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest @9% per annum. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. September 20, 2010 (rana)