1. The above noted batch of writ petition have been filed by the employees of Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVK) functioning under the Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology (OUAT) with a prayer to quash order dated 06.11.2021 under Annexure-6 fixing the pay scale of the Petitioners corresponding to their scale with the Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- keeping in view the letter of the ICAR under Annexure-7 Series recommending a Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- further for a direction to the Opposite Parties to fix and release the revised scale of pay to the Petitioners as per the 7th CPC in corresponding scale of pay of Rs.15,600/-- 39,100/- plus G.P. Rs.6,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.2016 within a stipulated period of time.

2. Since all the above noted writ petitions involve a common set of fact and a common question of law, the writ petition filed by one Prabhanjan Mishra in W.P.(C) No.40093 of 2021 is being taken up as the lead case in the batch of above noted writ petitions and, accordingly, for the sake of brevity, the facts involved in the case of Prabhanjan Mishra is being taken up for analysis to decide the common question of law involved in the present batch of writ petitions.

3. The factual matrix which was led to filing of the present writ petition, in short, is that pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.12.2011, the OUAT, i.e., the Opposite Party- University inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment of vacant posts in different disciplines of Krishi Vigyan Kendras (in short ‘KVSs’) functioning under the OUAT including the post of Subject Matter Specialist in Horticulture in the Scale of Pay of Rs.15,600-39,100/- plus AGP of Rs.6,000/- with usual DA and other allowances as applicable under OUAT Rules. The eligibility condition also provided that the candidates must have passed NET Examination.

4. Since the Petitioner had the eligibility for the post of Subject Matter Specialized in Horticulture, he had submitted his candidature of the said post of SMS. On the recommendation by the Standing Selection Committee vide Office Order dated 17.05.2012, the Petitioner was appointed as SMS in Horticulture (which was later re-designated as Scientist), the Petitioner joined immediately pursuant to the aforesaid appointment letter. It has also been stated in the writ petition that at the moment the Petitioner has been posted as Scientist at KVK, Kendrapara and his drawing salary in the Scale of Pay of Rs.15,600-39100/- with AGP of Rs.6,000/-.

5. It is apt to mention here that the KVKs have been set up in various districts in the State of Odisha pursuant to MoUs between India Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) and the Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology (OUAT). It is further pertinent to mention here that in some State KVKs are functioning under the direct control of ICAR, whereas in some other States, the ICAR has collaborated/entered into an MoU with the State Agriculture Universities for smooth functioning of such KVKs. As per the MoU, the ICAR is to provide the grant and the University is to provide infrastructure such as manpower, land, animals etc. of the KVKs. So far the administrative control of the staff employed in the KVKs, the same shall vest with the State University. It was also stipulated in the MoU that any increase in pay over and above the scale approved by ICAR shall be borne by the University. While this was so, after implementation of recommendation of 7th CPC, when the OUAT revised to the scale of pay of all KVK employees in consonance with the recommendation of 7th CPC, however, the pay of the Petitioner was not revised in terms of recommendation of 7th CPC. Accordingly, the Petitioner submitted a representation on 15.05.2021 to the Registrar of the University requesting him to fix and release his salary in terms of the recommendation of the 7th CPC.

6. Since no action was taken on the representation dated 16.05.2011, the Petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.23038 of 2021 for grant of revised scale of pay in terms of the recommendation of 7th CPC. This Court vide order dated 17.08.2021 disposed of the writ petition directing the Opposite Party No.1 to look into the matter and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the Petitioner by taking into consideration the grounds raised by the Petitioner in his representation within a period of two months.

7. After disposal of the earlier writ petition vide order dated 17.08.2021, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Parties and submitted a copy of order dated 17.08.2021 for their consideration.

8. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and Mr. A. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.4. Perused the pleadings of the respective parties as well as the documents annexed thereto.

9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, at the outset, by referring to the advertisement, appointment order and the pay slip of the Petitioner, submitted that the Petitioner submitted his application for the post which was advertised and the scale of pay in the advertisement was mentioned, i.e., which is Rs.15,600-39100/- plus AGP of Rs.6,000/-. He further contended that after due selection, the Petitioner was appointed as SMS/Scientist in Horticulture in the advertisement scale of pay. Thereafter, the Petitioner was drawing the pay scale that was advertised. Further, the appointment letter also reveals the scale of pay. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 relying upon a letter of the ICAR dated 06.11.2011 disposed of the representation of the Petitioner by fixing his pay as per 7th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2016 taking into account the corresponding scale of pay of Rs.15,600-39,100/- + G.P. of Rs.5,400/- instead of Rs.6,000/-, i.e., the scale in which the Petitioner was selected and appointed and he has been continuing with the aforesaid scale of pay since his initial date of appointment on 17.05.2012. Therefore, it was submitted that the rejection of the Petitioner’s representation is highly arbitrary and contrary to the terms of the advertisement as well as the appointment letter issued in favour of the Petitioner. Further referring to the letter dated 06.11.2021 of the OUAT under Annexure-6, it was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the representation was rejected by referring to the letters issued by the ICAR dated 29.03.2011, 09.03.2021, 01.10.2021 and 16.09.2021. He further submitted that the aforesaid letters of the ICAR reveals that the pay scale of SMS in KVKs in 7th CPC is fixed in corresponding scale of pay of Rs.15,600-39,100/- with Grade Pay of Rs.6,000/- in respect of persons, who were recruited before 29.03.2011 and in corresponding scale of pay Rs.15,600-39,100/- with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- in respect of the persons recruited after 29.03.2011 and any enhancement will be borne by the post organization.

10. In the aforesaid context, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that sub- classification within a homogeneous class as done by ICAR is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. He further submitted that such sub-classification has been done without any reasonable nexus with the objects sought to be achieved. Therefore, the same would be hit by the principle contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the said context, it was also contended that there was no different between persons who had appointed prior or after 29.3.2011. As such, it was argued that both categories of persons appointed prior to or after 29.03.2011 are entitled to the same scale of pay as they are having the same qualification and performing exactly the same nature of work. In such view of the matter, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner also contended that the conduct of the Opposite Parties in reducing the scale of pay after more than 9½ years of service by reducing the Grade Pay from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.5,400/- ignoring the recommendation of 7th CPC is unsustainable in law. Further such reduction in Grade Pay has also disentitled the Petitioner to apply for the next higher post Scientist and Associate Professor. In the said context, it was also argued that such reduction in Grade Pay is in the nature of punishment without following due procedure of law that too without any fault on the part of the Petitioner. Therefore, it was submitted that the order dated 06.11.2021 under Annexure-6 is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law and, accordingly, the same should be quashed.

11. Per contra, the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have filed a joint counter affidavit wherein it has not been disputed that the Petitioner was selected an appointed pursuant to Advertisement dated 08.12.2011 under Annexure-1 as SMS in KVK. Further, it has also been admitted that the Petitioner was appointed in the scale of pay of Rs.15,600-39,100/- with Grade Pay of Rs.6,000/- at the time of his appointment. The Opposite Parties have further stated that the ICAR vide letter dated 29.03.2011 has issued a guideline where the pay scale was prescribed at Rs.15,600-39,100/- plus Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- and pursuant to the said guideline, the Grade Pay of the Petitioner has been reduced from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.5,400/- w.e.f. 29.03.2011. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the aforesaid letter was received on 28.05.2021 and, accordingly, the Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- has been implemented in KVKs of ICAR.

12. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties referring to the MoU contended before this Court that execution of such MoU between ICAR and OUAT was within the knowledge of Government of Odisha. It was further contended before this Court that one of the important conditions of MoU is that the ICAR is to provide funds for running of KVKs in the state and the OUAT as host institution will have the administration control over the staff in the KVKs.

13. In course of time and through several discussions and deliberations with the Government of Odisha, the status of KVK employees under OUAT has been clarified vide letter dated 27.08.2014. As per the conditions contained in the clarification, the KVK employees are to be treated as contractual project staff and to be allowed regular scale of pay with annual increment and other benefits as per the ICAR guidelines, till funding of ICAR continues. Further, the KVK employees are not entitled to terminal benefits and their service is coterminous with the project. The State Government and OUAT will not shoulder any kind of liability pertaining to KVKs and the transfer of KVK employees will be within the KVKs only.

14. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties further submitted that before this Court that at the time of appointment of the Petitioner in the year 2011, the letter of the ICAR for appointment of KVK Scientists in the scale of pay as mentioned hereinabove with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- w.e.f. 29.03.2011 had not reached the OUAT, therefore, the selection and posting of Scientists in KVKs continued in the scale of pay as per the existing provision of Rules. However, after receiving a clear guideline from the ICAR vide latter dated 04.09.2017, the recruitment to the post of SMS is being made in the scale of pay with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that this defect was detected when the case of the Petitioner was being considered of revision of 7th UGC pay w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and by that time they have received letter dated 09.03.2011 of the ICAR. Therefore, the pay of the Scientists including the Petitioner having Grade Pay of Rs.6,000/- who have been recruited on or before 29.03.2011 have not been fixed in their corresponding 7th CPC scale of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2016. Further, it was submitted that considering the discontentment among the Scientists, the OUAT sought for a clarification from the ICAR vide letter dated 30.06.2021 with a request to allow Grade Pay of Rs.6,600/- to the Scientists of KVKs under OUAT, who have been recruited after 29.03.20211. In response to the said letter, the ICAR vide its letter dated 01.10.2021 gave a clarification to follow the guidelines received from ICAR vide letter dated 16.09.2021. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties further submitted that the clarification letter dated 16.09.2021 of the ICAR provides that the liability of the ICAR will be limited to pay the salary benefit for Rs.5,400/- Grade Pay only for SMS. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties also submitted that for funding of the projects like KVK, the OUAT depends on the 100% funding by ICAR. The OUAT also depends on such funds for payment of salary to the employees engaged in KVK projects. Since the OUAT does not have a its own source of fund, it cannot pay the benefit to the KVK employees. In such view of the matter and keeping in view the fact that the clarification of the ICAR, the OUAT decided to pay the Petitioner the 7th CPC recommendation w.e.f. 01.01.2016 by allowing a Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-.

15. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.4, i.e., ICAR. In its counter affidavit, the Opposite Party No.4 has given a detailed description of the organization and the projects undertaken by it. They have narrated in detail about the establishment of KVKs in different modes. They have also admitted that the project is 100% funded by the ICAR through a scheme. In the counter affidavit, further the Opposite Party No.4 has stated that on the basis of the MoU, the KVKs have floated advertisement for appointment as SMS and other technical staff and that the Opposite Party No.4 is to provide 100% funding as per the stigmatic demand and all other responsibilities were cast on Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and, accordingly, it was submitted that since the order dated 06.11.2021 under Annexure-11, which is impugned in the present writ petition, has been passed by Opposite Party No.1 to 3, the Opposite Party No.4 has no role at all in the same.

16. In the counter affidavit of the Opposite Party No.4, it has also been stated that with regard to the claim of revised scale of pay by the staff of KVKs in terms of the recommendation of 6th CPC, it has been mentioned in the letter dated 29.03.2011 that the SMS has been described as “Technical Staff” and not a ‘Scientist’. Therefore, the pay scale assigned to the said post in the 6th CPC was with a Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-. In the said letter, it has also been clarified that the liability of ICAR towards payment of pay and allowances will however be limited to pay scales as per the KVKs under ICAR institutes or actual whichever is less. It was further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.4 that with regard to guideline for recruitment and placement of KVK staff, the ICAR provides 100% financial assistance to the KVKs under the ‘Salary’, ‘Capital’ and ‘General’ heads of the annual budget and the service condition of the employees of the KVKs are to be governed by the rules and guidelines of the host organization, i.e., OUAT in the present case. Further, the recruitment of staff is to be done by the host organization. The Opposite Party No.4 has appended the pay structure of different employees of KVKs as well as the KVKs which are functioning under the administrative control of the OUAT in the State of Odisha. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that Zonal Office of ICAR to which funds are transferred to OUAT is ICAR–Agricultural Technology Application Research Institute (ATARI), Kolkata. In the counter affidavit of the Opposite Party No.4, it has been categorically stated that ICAR is liable to pay only the salary as per the shame/guidelines of the ICAR in respect of the staff required for running a scheme and the salary structure shall be as provided in the guidelines and approved by the Government of India. Furthermore, it has also been stated that the employees working in the KVKs are not the employees of ICAR rather they are employees of the host institution and under the administrative control of such host institutions.

17. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.4 that since the scheme which has been floated by the ICAR in which the financial assistance and approval of the Government of India, the same is strictly as per the financial out claim of the Government of India. Therefore, no changes can be made to be esteemed by the ICAR. It is further contended that any appointment to any of the post under the scheme are to be made strictly as provided under the Scheme that too in the scale of pay which is applicable to such approved staffing pattern. It was further contended that the ICAR has not issued any executive order for re-designation of SMS as Scientist. It was also contended that there is no clause in the MoU which supports providing of differential amount toward salary cost from ICAR funds, if the pay scales given by the host organization are higher than those approved for KVK. On the contrary, the MoU specifically says that the additional financial liability is to be borne by the host organization.

18. The Petitioners have also filed rejoinder affidavit rebutting the assertion of the Opposite Parties in their counter affidavit. Therefore, on perusal of such rejoinder affidavit, this Court found that most of the pleading in the rejoinder are repetition of the assertions made in the writ petition itself.

Therefore, this Court did not feel necessity of discussing contents of such rejoinder affidavit in details in this order.

19. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and upon a careful consideration of the documents placed on record by way of annexures to the pleadings, this Court to resolve the dispute is required to find out to what was the terms and conditions under which the Petitioners were appointed and such appointment was by whom. In reply to the aforesaid questions, this Court had glance on the advertisement dated 8th December, 2011 under Annexure-1. On perusal of the said advertisement, it appears that the same was issued by the OUAT-Opposite Party No.1 to the writ petition. The advertisement reveals that the applications were invited from eligible candidates for recruitment to the vacant posts in KVKs with a clear stipulation that the services will be co-terminus with the funding of ICAR and that no terminal benefit shall be allowed as per ICAR norms. So far the post of SMS is concerned, a scale of pay of Rs.15,600- 39,100/- plus AGP of Rs.6,000/- has been prescribed in the advertisement. Moreover, on being selected by the Standing Selection Committee, the Petitioner was issued with an appointment letter dated 17.5.2012 under Annexure-2. A close scrutiny of the said appointment letter also reveals that the scale of pay as advertised has been specifically mentioned in such appointment letter. Thereafter, the Petitioner joined in service and was drawing the scale of pay as advertised and in which he was appointed to the post of SMS. While the Petitioner was continuing in service, the Petitioner submitted a representation on 16.05.2021 claiming 7th CPC recommended scale of pay. Since the same was not considered by the authorities, the Petitioner approached this Court in the earlier writ petition, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.08.2021 directing the authorities to consider the representation of the Petitioner.

20. Pursuant to the order dated 17.01.2021 passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition, the Opposite Parties No.1 consider the representation of the Petitioner and vide order dated 06.11.2021, the representation of the Petitioner with a claim of scale of pay with Grade Pay of Rs.6,000/- was rejected by relying upon a letter of the ICAR dated 29.03.2011. Further, pursuant to such clarification of ICAR dated 29.03.2011, the Petitioner was granted the scale of pay with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- and, accordingly, his representation was disposed of. Since the clarification of ICAR vide letter dated 29.03.2011 creating two different sub- classes within one class and prescribing two different pay scales with the cut-off date of 29.03.2011 has not been challenged by the Petitioner in the present writ application. Therefore, this Court has no occasion to examine the validity of letter dated 29.03.2021 under Annexuer-7 Series.

21. On a careful analysis of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that in view of the MoU executed between ICAR and OUAT, the ICAR shall provide 100% funding, however, the host institution, i.e., OUAT has to

appoint the employees and such appointed employees shall be under the administrative control of OUAT. Indisputably, there is no statutory rule governing the selection and appointed of the staffs/officers in KVKs under the OUAT. Such appointments being under a scheme/guideline, this Court has to examine by keeping in view the MoU and the advertisement issued for such appointment. Admittedly, the advertisement was issued by the OUAT by prescribing the scale of pay with a Grade Pay of Rs.6,000/- for the post of SMS under Annexure-1. On being duly selected by Standing Selection Committee, the Petitioners were appointed and were being paid the scale of pay which was advertised and in which they were appointed. Therefore, the contractual relationship between the Opposite Party No.1 and the present Petitioner is to be governed by the terms of advertisement and the appointment as contained under Annexure-1 and 2 in the absence of any statutory rules. So to say, the relationship is purely contractual and the same is to be governed by the terms of contract under which the Petitioners were appointed.

22. Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the Petitioners were appointed by OUAT in a prescribed scale of pay with a Grade Pay of Rs.6,600/-. No doubt, the project undertaken by the OUAT is being 100% financed by ICAR, the OUAT is independently liable to the employees, who were engaged by them including the Petitioners. Therefore, the OUAT is legally liable to pay the scale of pay with Grade Pay that was advertised and the appointment was made subject to such scale of pay with Grade Pay. With regard to the fact that the scale of pay with Grade Pay, which is in excess of the guidelines or clarification of the ICAR, the same is to be resolved between OUAT and the ICAR in terms of the MoU. The Petitioner not being a party to the MoU is only to bound by the advertisement and the appointment letter. As has been stated earlier that since the decision of the ICAR dated 29.03.2011 has not been challenged in the present writ petitions, this Court had no occasion to consider the validity of the same. Therefore, it is upto the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 to raise the same before the ICAR and resolve the same amicably with ICAR.

23. So far present Petitioners are concerned, this Court is of the considered view that they are entitled to the scale of pay that was promised to them through the advertisement as well as the appointment letter under Annexure-1 and 2 and, accordingly, it is directed that the Opposite Party No.1 shall pay the scale of pay of Rs.15,600/-39,100/- plus AGP of Rs.6,000/- to the Petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.2016, as a consequence of such direction, the impugned order rejecting the representation of the Petitioner vide order dated 06.11.2021 under Annexure-6 is hereby quashed. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are further directed to calculate and sanction the differential arrear taking into consideration the pay scale prescribed under Annexure-1 and 2 and shall do well to pay the arrear differential amount within a period of two months from the date of communication of this judgment.

24. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petitions are allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.