Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition seeks mandamus against the opposite parties to treat the petitioners as regular employees with effect from their respective dates of joining as Lecturer in University Department of Pharmacology Science (for short “UDPS”) on consolidated pay basis and pay them all consequential service benefits including financial benefits, for opening of service book involving each of the petitioners and grant pension to the petitioners under Pension Scheme, as applicable to the State Government employees and open the G.P.F. accounts of the petitioners from the date of joining to the post i.e. 05.12.2003 within stipulated time, grant annual increments and revised scale of pay as per 6th Revised Pay Commission in favour of the petitioners and declare petitioners are eligible for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme as per AICTE norms with all other consequential service and financial benefits, further any other order as deem fit and proper. In sum and substance petitioners here prayed for (i) regularization in their service from the date of their contractual absorption,(ii) consequential benefits including financial benefits, (iii) opening their service books, (iv) grant pension to both (v) open G.P.F. accounts (vi) granting increments in terms of 6th Revised Scale of Pay and (vii) promotion under Career Advancement Scale as per AICTE norm.

2. Factual background involving the case is that Utkal University opened self-finance sponsored courses under different departments in the year 1989. Pharmacy course is one of the said finance post opened under the University through the Department of Pharmaceutical Science (hereinafter called as UDPS) and running independently. Petitioners on the basis of information obtained through Right to Information Act claimed Pharmacy course is a regular course undertaken through a regular department of the University. It is claimed that opposite party no.2 with an intention to achieve the desire through the AICTE, New Delhi Letter F. No.06/02/ ORI/ Phar/2002/2001 dated 01.01.2002 for approval of AICTE with retrospective effect the B.Pharm Course. In the process of imparting B.Pharm and M.Pharm as regular course, University in their correspondents to Director, Medical Education & Training (for short “DMET”), Orissa attempted obtaining NOC, the Registrar, Utkal University vide its letter dated 16.04.2003 however conveying that UDPS Department is an independent department. To establish the aforesaid, petitioners have enclosed Annexure-1(A), 1(B) and 1(C) respectively. Through Annexure-1(D), petitioners attempted to establish UDPS is a Government owned institution. AICTE also in the year 2007 communicated that UDPS approval to Pharmacy, Utkal University is a constituent College of University. The documents to support above is at Annexure-1(E) appended to the writ petition. It is on the basis of the information through Annexures-A(1), to A(E), petitioners claimed there should not be any doubt that UDPS is a regular institution under Government and being a institution is running under the Utkal University, the employees like that of the petitioners should be entitled to such benefits extended to the regular employees of the University as well as their counterparts in Government owned regular establishment. Petitioners claimed that while the position of the petitioners stood thus, an advertisement was published in Daily English Newspaper “Indian Express” dated 06.11.2003 by the UDPS, Utkal University inviting application from eligible candidates with respective specialization for different faculty position for UDPS, under Utkal University annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-1. Annexure-1 discloses date of interview to be dated 30.11.2003. Petitioners claimed that for the disclosures in Annexure-1, they are entitled to salary as per AICTE norms. Petitioners being applicant pursuant to Annexure-1 found to have been qualified for the post of Lecturers in Pharmacology and Pharmaceutics. Petitioners were directed to appear in the interview board on 30.11.2003. Petitioners claiming to be coming out successful in the interview but were shocked and surprised to receive the appointment order on 05.12.2003 issued by the Registrar of the Utkal University disclosing that their engagement is on contractual basis and again on consolidated pay. Petitioner No.1 was appointed as Lecturer of Pharmacology whereas petitioner no.2 was appointed as Lecturer in Pharmaceutics. Copies of the appointment orders are enclosed as Annexure-4 series. Petitioners claimed facing employment crisis, petitioners had no other option than to join the respective posts pursuant to the offer of appointment at Annexure-4 series. Consequent upon joining of the petitioners, notification was issued by the Registrar on 21.02.2004 indicating the names of the Lecturers and the date of joining of the petitioners along with others vide Annexure-5. Petitioners were continuing on the basis of extension orders vide Annexure-6 series. Petitioners claimed considering their persuasion for posting both of them as regular lecturers in terms of advertisement, while the matter stood thus,

in the year 2007 the Chairman P.G. Council in a first step issued engagement orders engaging the petitioners as adjunct lecturers under the order of Chairman, P.G. Council dated 15.03.2007 vide Annexure-7 series. Petitioners claimed, there has been playing with the terms of appointment involving the petitioners by the University even both of them have been interviewed and appointed against substantive vacant posts of Lecturers and they claimed there is no post called adjunct lecturer available through the advertisement or appointment. Being aggrieved and finding no proper fitment of the petitioners, petitioners resisted such treatment to the higher authorities. There was no improvement and petitioners were still engaged as adjunct lecturers. There is further representation by the petitioners on 30.06.2008 seeking regularization of their services from the date of their engagement. It is in a development, the Syndicate in its resolution dated 28.08.2008 took a decision to regularize the services of the petitioners and several similarly situated persons. It is on the basis of Syndicate resolution, the University started paying petitioners regular scale of pay but with effect from 01.09.2008 appearing at Annexure-8. On a subsequent development, the petitioners were allowed to draw their monthly salary in regular scale of pay at Rs.8000-275-13600/- with effect from 01.09.2008 with usual D.P. and D.A. as admissible from time to time appearing at Annexure-9. Through the order at Annexure-8, the petitioners claimed this order clearly discloses both the petitioners will be paid salary in regular scale of pay with effect from 01.09.2008 and their services will be regularized from the date of joining the post in the consolidated salary and they will be covered under the C.P.F. Scheme. Petitioners further pleaded that by direction at Annexure-8, services of the petitioner were regularized from the date of joining and that they will be covered under the C.P.F. Scheme. Petitioners here however claimed that since they have been regularized from the date of their joining, they are entitled to regular arrear salary from the date of joining in their respective posts and as a consequence of which they should also be entitled to other reliefs also. For there is some development in the pendency of the writ petition, it appears, there has been amendment to the writ petition. By way of amendment, petitioners have claimed that in the pendency of the writ petition, the opposite parties directed the petitioners to give their option for pension scheme or G.P.F. scheme in accordance with the provision of Orissa University Employees (Conditions of Survive) Statues, 1988. Petitioner No.1 claimed to have already submitted his application on 28.01.2011 giving his option for Pension Scheme as applicable to State Government Employees. Petitioners enclosed such application as Annexure-1(F).

3. It is in the above background, Mr.Mishra, learned senior counsel for the petitioners on reiteration of the above facts and development taken place in the meantime and narrated through the above paragraphs, took this Court to several documents through rejoinder affidavit. In an attempt to satisfy that petitioners were appointed against sanctioned post, in the process, Mr.Mishra, learned Senior Counsel took this Court to the document at Annexure-15/A, running page-142 of the brief and submitted that for the letter dated 18.04.2003, the Registrar, Utkal University requested the Deputy Secretary, Higher Education Department to take steps regarding concurrence and sanction of five Lecturer posts including the two posts held by the petitioners. Mr.Mishra, learned Senior Counsel through Annexure-15/B, running page-143 to 145 taking this Court to the disclosures therein submitted that there was Special Committee meeting held under the Chairmanship of Principal Secretary, Finance Department to take decision for creation of five numbers of regular Lecturer posts in the Pharmacy Department and suggesting for immediate recruitment. In the above background, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel also submitted that taking into account the above development, Government in Higher Education Department vide Letter No.18153 intimated the Registrar, Utkal University for creation of five numbers of regular lecturer posts in the Pharmacy Department i.e. UPDS on the condition that Utkal University may communicate the view of the Government to UGC about setting up of Pharmacy Department and that the post shall be filled up as per the PCI/AICTE guideline. It is also directed that there shall be entitlement of UGC/AICTE lecturer scale of pay and the P.G. (M.Pharm) and Int.M.Pharm would be running as per AICTE/PCI guideline. Mr.Mishra, learned senior counsel thus made reference of the document at Annexure-16/A at page 146 to 148 of the brief. Mr.Mishra, learned senior counsel taking this Court to the letter dated 17.06.2003 issued by the AICTE claimed in this letter the AICTE intimating the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare regarding extension of approval of AICTE to School of Pharmacy, University Department of Pharmaceutical Science (UPDS). Mr.Mishra made reference of Annexure-17/A in this regard. Taking to the disclosure through Annexure-18/A, Mr.Mishra, learned Senior Counsel contended that this is a letter where the Government directed the Registrar to complete the process of filling up of five numbers of sanctioned regular post of lecturers as concurred by Finance Department Order dated 27.09.2003. It is in the above background, Mr.Mishra, learned senior counsel claimed the selection process having followed through all the above developments, there should not be any doubt that the posts advertised and filled are not only regular posts for which the petitioners are recruited but there has been also recruitment through an advertisement definitely deemed to be filling up of regular vacancies. It is at this stage, taking this Court to the document at Annexure-19/A, running page-163, Mr.Mishra claimed the Registrar of the University clearly disclosed the University’s intention indicating that appointments were made as per the Government order in compliance of PCI/AICTE norms. It is in the above scenario, reading through Annexure-5, Mr.Mishra, learned Senior Counsel claimed that there is clear communication by the Registrar notifying petitioners have joined as faculty members and vide Annexure-8 the University was compelled to come out with an order of regularization of the petitioners. In a further development through Annexure-20, Mr.Mishra, submitted that there has been direction for paying the four lecturers including the two petitioners therein from the University fund. Through Annexure-21 series, Mr.Mishra, learned senior counsel claimed the Additional Secretary, Higher Education Department requested the Additional Secretary to the Chancellor to consider the case of the petitioner no.1 for promotion to Reader post as per the CAS-AICTE. It is in the above background, Mr.Mishra learned senior counsel while admitting the petitioners have been regularized since their date of joining but complains that they have been provided with regular scale attached to such post only with effect from 01.09.2008 when petitioners ought to have been paid in the regular scale, since their initial date of joining in 2003 with settling of consequential increments also. Mr.Mishra, learned senior counsel also complained of no decision for grant of other financial reliefs, as indicated in paragraph-1 herein.

4. Mr.G.P.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Utkal University though did not dispute to the contents in the advertisement vide Annexurw-1 not indicating the recruitment involved contractual appointment, but however opposed the claim of the petitioners on the premises that posts since involve self finance scheme, there was no scope for recruiting the Petitioners on regular basis. Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel similarly referring to the development taken place vide Annexure-8, submitted the Petitioners since have been regularized from the date of their initial appointment however with regular scales of pay with effect from 01.09.2008 contended there is in fact, no cause of action surviving to entertain the writ petition. Further for petitioners already brought under the C.P.F. Scheme submitted prayer in writ vide prayer No.(i) and (ii) does not survive any further. Again for the Petitioners already treated as regular employees since the date of joining the posts on 05.12.2003, there is no doubt that they are entitled to benefit of revised scale of pay but however such benefit is to be given with effect from 01.09.2008 with treatment of back wages notionally as assured vide Annexure-8. Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel also made it clear that once both the petitioners have been regularized since their initial date of joining but by virtue of order in 2008 vide Annexure-8, there is opening of service book of such employees becomes automatic. Further for their accepting the offer of the University vide Annexure-8 and for clear condition therein vide clause (G), Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel contended both the petitioners are estopped from claiming arrear, if any. Mr.Mohanty, taking this Court to the counter affidavit contended that course in which petitioners have been appointed is sponsored course instituted by the University having vested with powers under Section 3, 5(a), 12 (2) (d) of Orissa University Act, 1987 read together with the statute 23 of the University First statute 1990 to function under P.G. Teaching Department. Mr.Mohanty in the other circumstance contends University at the relevant point of time not received block grant from the State was constrained to appoint the Petitioners on contractual category but in the meantime their services have been regularized vide Annexure-8 but dependent on development taken place in the meantime. Giving reference to the stand of the University vide paragraph-5 of their counter, Mr.Mohanty again contended that creation of 5 teaching posts, two Professors, one Reader and two Lecturers for UDPS are created subject to conditions described in Para-5 and this position falsifies the claim of petitioners that UDPS is a regular P.G. Department. On the appointment of petitioners as adjunct Lecturer, Mr.Mohanty learned counsel contended since position of petitioners was contractual and in terms of AICTE norms, there is no difficulty in designating both of them as adjunct Lecturer. Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel looking to the appointment involved self financing scheme and payment is made though the fund raised from course fee, the UDPS was compelled to post the petitioners in contractual basis. Mr.Mohanty, again in reference to the advertisement contended that there was clarity in the advertisement that petitioners will be approved as against substantive posts and thus claimed the petitioners misconceived by remaining under impression that the advertisement involved regular postings. Finding the development through Annexure-8 based on Syndicate decisions, Mr.Mohnaty, learned counsel contended petitioners have not only been regularized with effect from their initial joining but also are entitled to regular scale with effect from 01.09.2008 making the writ petition virtually infructuous also bringing in both the petitioners under C.P.F. Scheme. Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel also referring to conditions in Annexure-A available at running page-114 of the brief submitted that for the conditions therein, petitioners remain abided by the same and since these conditions are not challenged as of now, both of them cannot claim arrear. Thus petitioners do not deserve any relief beyond it is secured vide Annexure-8.

5. The AICTE has filed formal counter while claiming that the dispute relates to petitioners with Utkal University and AICTE has nothing to do at the same time left it for the petitioners to establish their own case.

6. This Court finds petitioners have also brought a rejoinder while strongly opposing the stand of the University by filing additional documents vide Annexure-18-A to Annexure-21 attempted to strengthen their case that right through the advertisement, entire action of the University not only based on creation of post, sanction of posts held by the Petitioners and through rejoinder it is claimed the advertisement did contain interview against regular vacancies and thus claimed petitioners entitled to all reliefs claimed through this writ petition.

7. This Court keeping in view the claim of the parties herein and particularly claim for regularization for the assurances through the advertisement involved herein, going through the decision in the case of K.Anbazhagan & Anr. Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madras & Anr., (2018) 9 SCC 293 finds the position of law set down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in involving almost similar exercise through paragraphs-33 and 34 as come to observe as follows:

“ 33. Now, we come to the second reason given by the High Court that the appointments of the appellants were contractual appointments. We have already noticed that the appointments of the appellants were made against nineteen sanctioned posts of Additional District Judges by Government Order dated 18-12-2001. The notification which was issued by the High Court inviting applications from practising advocates mentioned that applications are invited from practising advocates for being considered for the post of Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) on ad hoc basis for a period of five years. It further mentioned that the post carries a scale of pay of Rs 15,000-400-18,600. Thus, the notification inviting applications never mentioned that it is a contractual appointment. Further, the appointment order issued to the appellants dated 14-2-2002, in para 3 stated as follows:

“3. Accordingly, the High Court, Madras, has called for applications from eligible advocates for filling up of 15 posts of Additional District Judges (Fast Track Courts), conducted interview and sent proposals to the Government recommending 15 names of advocates for appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judges (Fast Track Courts) on ad hoc basis.”

The appointment order thus clearly mentioned that the appointment is on ad hoc basis.

34. In service jurisprudence, the appointments are made by the employer with different nomenclature/ characteristics. Appointments are made both on permanent or temporary basis against permanent post or temporary post. The appointment can also be made on ad hoc basis on permanent or temporary post. There is one common feature of appointments of permanent, temporary or ad hoc appointment i.e. those appointments are made against the post whether permanent or temporary. On the contrary, for contractual appointment, there is no requirement of existence of any post. A contractual appointment is not normally made against a post. Further, contractual appointments are also not normally on pay scale. On the mere fact that the advertisement as well as the appointment was made initially for a period of five years, the nature of appointment of the appellants cannot be termed as contractual appointment. When a government servant is contemplated to hold a certain post for a limited period it is a tenure post.”

Similarly in another decision in the case of Somesh Thapliyal & Anr. Vs. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B Garhwal University & Anr., (2021) 10 SCC 116, this Court finds in almost similar case and deciding the petitioner appointment involved therein was a substantial appointment and required to follow necessary relief, through paragraphs- 48 to 52 the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:

“48. Adverting to the facts of the case, undisputedly, the appellants were appointed pursuant to an advertisement dated 4-2-2004 and 19-5-2006 held for regular selection and after going through the process of selection as being provided under Chapter VI of the 1973 Act and on the recommendations been made by the statutory Selection Committee, constituted under Sections 31(1) and (4) of the Act and approved by the Executive Council, which is a statutory authority, appointments were made in the year 2004 and 2007 respectively.

49. In our considered view, once the appellants have gone through the process of selection provided under the scheme of the 1973 Act regardless of the fact whether the post is temporary or permanent in nature, at least their appointment is substantive in character and could be made permanent as and when the post is permanently sanctioned by the competent authority.

50. In the instant case, after the teaching posts in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences have been duly sanctioned and approved by the University Grants Commission of which a detailed reference has been made, supported by the letter sent to the University Grants Commission dated 14-8-2020 indicating the fact that the present appellants are working against the teaching posts of Associate Professor/Assistant Professor sanctioned in compliance of the norms of the AICTE/PCI and are appointed as per the requirements, qualifications and selection procedure in accordance with the 1973 Act and proposed by the University, such incumbents shall be treated to be appointed against the sanctioned posts for all practical purposes.

51. Thus, it can safely be held that the appellants became entitled to claim their appointment to be in substantive capacity against the permanent sanctioned post and become a member of the teaching faculty of the Central University under the 2009 Act.

52. Consequently, the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 19-8-2013 [Somesh Thapliyal v. HNB Garhwal University, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2815] is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellants shall be treated to be substantively appointed teachers (Associate Professor/Assistant Professor) and members of service of the Central University, namely, HNB Garhwal University for all practical purposes, entitled for a pay scale and notional consequential benefits admissible to a regularly appointed teacher in the service of the Central University under the 2009 Act. No costs”.

This Court finds both the decisions taken into hereinabove appear to be clearly supporting the case of the petitioners.

8. Keeping the legal position in view, this Court now proceeds to find the developments involving petitioners in the meantime. In the process, vide Annexure-1 at page 52 of the brief, this Court finds the advertisement involved in the recruitment of the petitioners reads as follows:

"UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF

PHARMACEUTICAL SCFIENCES

UTKAL UNIVERSITY

VANIVIHAR,BHUBANESWAR,751004.ORISSA

ADVERTISEMENT

Applications in plain paper are invited for the following faculty positions for UDPS, Utkal University

1. Professors : Pharmaceutical Chemistry/Industrial pharmacy/Pharmacognosy.

2. Readers : Pharmacognosy/Pharmacology.Pharmaceutics.

3. Lecturers: Biotechnology/Pharmaceutics/ Pharmaceutical Chemistry/ Pharmacology.

Qualifications, experiences & Salary As per AICTE norms.Interested candidates with respective specialization may send their bio-data, specifying their career, qualification, specialization, research publications etc. with documentary proofs. The application with Bank Draft of Rs.200/- only drawn in favour of Director, UPDS payable at SBI Campus branch, Utkal University, Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar must reach the undersigned on or before 26th Nov.2003. Candidates may note that the interview is fixed on 30th Nov. 2003 at 10.30 A.M.

University reserves the right to reject any application without assigning any reason thereof.

DIRECTOR"

Reading the advertisement, it becomes clear that applicants therein were called for the faculty position in Lecturers in different departments indicated therein in UPDS, Utkal University. Qualification and salary aspect, it also made clear that it will be in terms of AICTE norms and candidates were required to attend the interview fixed to 30.11.2003. This Court here finds through several paragraphs both that the petitioners have come out successful through the interview vide Annexure-1. Both the petitioners were appointed vide appointment orders at Annexure-4 series. Appointment order in respect of petition no.1 reads as follows:

“UTKAL UNIVERSITY

VANI VIHAR, BHUBANESWAR

Registrar.

Letter No.CDC-81/65551/03 Dated 5.12.2003 Sub: Engagement of Contractual Faculty.

In pursuance of the orders passed by the Administrator Dt.03.12.2003 Debasish Pradhan is engaged as Lecturer in Pharmacology in the University Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences on contractual basis for a period of one year from the actual date of joining on payment of consolidated remunerations of Rs.10,000/-only per month.

He is required to report for assignment on or before 15.12.2003.

The engagement is purely contractual and terminable at any time without notice or without assigning any reason thereof.

The duration of the contract will be for a period of one year and it can be renewed for fresh spells of one year’s duration on assessment of performance of the concerned teacher by a designated Committee up to a maximum of three years.

Sd/-REGISTRAR

Memo No.CDC-81/65552/2003

Dated 5.12.2003

Copy to:

1. The person concerned; D.Pradhan C/o:B.K.Pradhan.

Q.No.174(P) Gajapati Nagar. Bhubaneswar-5.

2. The Chairman, P.G. Council, Utkal University.

3. The Comptroller of Finance, Utkal University,

4. The Director, College Development Council, U.U.

5. The HOD, Director & Accounts Section, UPDS,

6. The Controller of Examinations, U.U. for information and

7. Guard file of the Registrar, Utkal University

Sd/-REGISTRAR”

Similarly, the appointment order in respect of petitioner no.2 reads as follows:

“ UTKAL UNIVERSITY VANI VIHAR, BHUBANESWAR

Registrar

Letter No.CDC-81/65544/03 Dated 5.12.2003 Sub: Engagement of Contractual Faculty.

In pursuance of the orders passed by the Administrator Dt.03.12.2003 Miss Sradhanjali Patra is engaged as Lecturer in Pharmaceutics in the University Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences on contractual basis for a period of one year from the actual date of joining on payment of consolidated remunerations of Rs.10,000/-only per month.

He is required to report for assignment on or before 15.12.2003.

The engagement is purely contractual and terminable at any time without notice or without assigning any reason thereof.

The duration of the contract will be for a period of one year and it can be renewed for fresh spells of one year’s duration on assessment of performance of the concerned teacher by a designated Committee up to a maximum of three years.

Sd/-REGISTRAR

Memo No.CDC-81/65545/2003 Dated 5.12.2003

Copy to:

1. The person concerned; Miss.S.Patra,C/o-Judhsthir

Patra, Baikuntha Nagar 2nd. Line, Berhampur-760001, Ganjam.

2. The Chairman, P.G. Council, Utkal University.

3. The Comptroller of Finance, Utkal University,

4. The Director, College Development Council, U.U.

5. The HOD, Director & Accounts Section, UPDS,

6. The Controller of Examinations, U.U. for information and

7. Guard file of the Registrar, Utkal University

Sd/-REGISTRAR”

Both the appointment orders dated 05.12.2003 clearly disclose that there is appointment of the petitioners on contractual basis for a period of one year and again on payment of consolidated remuneration at Rs.10,000/- only per month in clear contradiction to the advertisement condition. This Court here finds, looking to the term of advertisement requiring filling up of regular vacancies with further attachment of clear condition in respect of salary as per the AICTE norms. There is no doubt that both the appointment orders remain not only contrary to the salary norms but also remain contrary to the type of appointment promised through the advertisement. When the advertisement depicts calling for applications for faculty position with UDPS there is absolutely no indication of filling up of posts under contractual basis. Further, the recruitment also based on not only involving an advertisement but also on securing qualification as per AICTE norms and after the candidates faced interview of the competent authority and came out successful. It is here for there is clear disclosures that the petitioners were all allowed to continue until unless 2008, there is consideration of their request by the competent authority compelling the Chairman P.G. Council in the Post Graduation Department of Utkal University engaging petitioner no.1 as Adjunct lecturer in Pharmacology in UPDS vide its letter dated 15.03.2007 for one year with effect from 08.12.2006 but again on payment of consolidated remuneration at Rs.10,000/- vide running page- 70 of the brief. Similar order of engagement was also issued in respect of the petitioner no.2. It is at this stage, it appears on consideration of the request of the petitioners and through further persuasion to treat them as regular employees, this Court here finds there has been issuance of communication by the Registrar, Utkal University on 03.02.2009 revealing as follows:

“UTKAL UNIVERSITY

VANI VIHAR, BHUBANESWAR-751 004 OFFICE ORDER Office Order No.Estt.-I/A-679/5729/09 Dated:03.02.2009 Pursuant to the decisions of the Syndicate dated 28.08.2008 and 30.10.2008 and subsequent orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor on 03.02.2009 the following Lecturers of the UPDS engaged in consolidated salary are allowed regular scales of pay in the scale of pay Rs.8000-275-13,500/- with effect from 01.09.2008 as per terms and conditions mentioned below:

1. Debasish Pradhan.

2. Ranjit Mohapatra

3 Sunit Kumar Sahoo.

4. Miss. Sradhanjali Patra.

5. Sabuj Sahoo .

Terms & Conditions

(1) They will be paid salary in regular scales of pay with effect from 01.09.2008 and their services will be regularized from the date of joining the post in the consolidated salary.

(2) The appointment stand abolished automatically after cessation of the scheme without any prior notice and compensation;

(3) They will be covered under C.P.F. Scheme

(4) The authorities reserves the right to amend/modify the terms and conditions of service or terminate the service without assigning any reason;

(5) The condonation of breakage in service by one day/ two days, made earlier be treated as E.L., while regularizing their services.

(6) They are also required to submit an undertaking indicating that they will not claim any arrear from their date of joining up to 31.08.2008

(7) Their salaries be met out of the share of the UDPS.

Sd/-REGISTRAR

Memo No.Estt. I A-679 5730 09

1. Person concerned;

2. Chairman, P.G. Council, Utkal University.

3. Comptroller of Finance, Utkal University,

4. HOD, UPDS, Utkal University

5. Controller of Examinations, Utkal University.

6. Section Officers, Estt.IV, Compilation Salary P.F./ Dev.I &II Syndicate Budget Bills Payment Cash, Utkal University; for information and necessary action.

7. Secretary to Vice Chancellor, P.A. to Registrar, U.U.

8. Personal file of incumbents for record.

Sd/-REGISTRAR”

Reading the aforesaid development, this Court finds for the first time through this letter the petitioners were not only allowed regular scale of pay in the scale of Rs.8000-275- 13,500/- with effect from 01.09.2008 but for the conditions mentioned therein vide ConditionNo.1, though both of them along with three others were directed to be paid salary in regular scale of pay with effect from 01.09.2008 but the University took the decision regularizing their services from the date of joining the post in consolidated salary. Further through the Condition No.3, both the petitioners along with three others through very same letter have also been covered under C.P.F. Scheme. There is no denial to this position by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as main contesting party, the Utkal University. In the above background, this Court now proceed to reliefs claimed by the petitioners particularly at relief nos.i, ii, iii and iv in one go. It is here observed for the clear indication in the order at Annexrue-8, both petitioners have been regularized since the date of their initial appointment on 05.12.2003 but however with attachment of regular scale indicated there with effect from 01.09.2008. This Court here finds for petitioners already regularized since 05.12.2003 i.e. the date of their joining, both of them should be deemed to be entitled to regular scale with effect from 05.12.2003 till 31.08.2008. This period will however be treated notionally but taking into account the scale attached to the post of lecturers for all subsequent accounting purpose. .

9. Above direction meets with the request of the petitioners vide prayer nos. i and ii, taken note in first paragraph of the judgment. Coming to the opening of service books, there should not remain any doubt that once petitioners have been declared to be regularized since 05.12.2003, the opening of service books also commence from 05.12.2003 and University should see there is no lapse in it. This observation meets with request of the petitioners vide prayer no.iii taken note in paragraph-1 hereinabove. Now, coming to relief no.v, providing benefit of G.P.F. to both the petitioners, this Court finds order at Annexure-8 at Clause-3, both petitioners are already admitted to CPF which is more beneficial. This Court on prayer no.v, observes University after admitting both of them to C.P.F. scheme is confirmed. This Court in respect of prayer no.v, observes petitioners will be entitled to all benefits under CPF scheme. Now so far as prayer at Clause-iv, on the claim of petitioners for pension, this Court here finds there is foundation to the recruitment herein involved through the letter of competent authority in Government based on a request of University itself vided Annexure-A/18. From document at Annexure-A/18 this Court finds the letter of the Deputy Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education dated 04.10.2003 to the Registrar, Utkal University reads as follows

“Government of Orissa

Department of Higher Education

No. 1. HE/UM.36/03.19996 / HE., Date : 4/10/03

From

Sri B.D. Behera, O.A.S : 1 (SB)

Deputy Secretary to Government To

The Registrar,

Utkal University, Bhubaneswar

Sub : Filling up of the five Lecturer posts (Regular & Sanctioned) for School of Pharmacy / UDPS Utkal University.

Ref. Your letter No. R-399/03, Dt. 18.04.2003 and V.C., 131/3 dt. 27.7.03

Sir,

I am directed to invite a reference on the subject cited above and to our linked Order No. 1 HE-UM-36/03-18153, dt. 05.07.03 to say that the proceeding of the meeting held on dt. 12.05.03 (from other 03 Dept. 05 Lect. Post permanently diverted to UDPS) a fresh recruitment shall be made and completed by 15th Dec. 03 to comply the preconditions of AICTE & PCI for their approval to UDPS. These five Lecturer posts are sanctioned regular posts and are pensionery concurred by F.D. vide their UOR No. 270/SSI dt. 27.09.03.

Your are therefore asked to complete the process for filling of the 05 Lecturer post for UDPS as per AICTE norms by 15th Dec. 2003 & inform the undersigned.

Yours faithfully,

Deputy Secretary to Government

Memo No. 19997/HE., Date : 4/10/03

Copy forwarded to the Commissioner – cum – Secretary to Chancellor Raj Bhawan, Bhubaneswar for information and necessary action with refer.

Deputy Secretary to Government”

This letter not only makes it clear that five lecturer posts including those held by the petitioners are sanctioned as regular posts but the person holding such post will remain pensionary as concurred by Finance Department vide their UOR No.270/SSI dt.27.09.2003. This Court here finds since the process of recruitment involved herein is an outcome of the sanctioned post with specific conditions vide letter dated 04.10.2004, running page 162 of the brief and with financial concurrence by Finance Department, there should not be any doubt that the post held by the petitioners not only regular post but the persons holding such post are also entitled to pension and cannot discriminated otherwise and will be treated in par with other staffs in the UDPS continuing since December, 2003.

10. Coming to prayer no.vi, as summarized in paragraph-1 hereinabove, related to grant of increment in terms of 6th Pay Commission recommendation, as discussed hereinabove, petitioners are already holder of regular post from the date of their initial joining since 05.12.2003 may be by virtue of order vide Annexure-8 in the year 2008 and as a consequence both of them are also entitled to all such benefits through all the revision in scale of pay taken place in the meantime. This Court here taking into above observes if the University has not applied the benefit of revision in the scale of pay in terms of 6th Pay Commission further and in the meantime 7th Pay recommendation already came into force, directs the University to work out such benefit involving both the petitioners by completing such exercise within four weeks and arrear, if any, ought to be released in favour of the petitioners herein along with interest at least @ 5% all through, since it is detained for no fault of the petitioners at least within a further period of two weeks.

11. Coming to consider the prayer no.vii, so far it relates to promotion under Career Advancement Scheme, this Court simply observes the position of both the petitioners being regular employees since 05.12.2003. Through discussions in paragraph- 3, it appears some information while claims UDPS Department is an independent Department, some correspondences say UDPS is a Government Establishment. At the same time, there is communication by AICTE communicating UDPS is a constituent of Utkal University, regularization of petitioners also taken by Utkal University in the involvement of its own Senate and Syndicate as well. This Court hopes and expects, regular employees also entitled promotion, if not considered, the University Authority shall consider this aspect forthwith.

12. In the result, the writ petition succeeds but to the above extent. No cost.