UTKAL UNIVERSITY AND ANR.versusJYOTIRMAYEE NAYAK AND ORS.

A                        UTKAL UNIVERSITY AND ANR.
                                      v.
                        JYOTIRMA YEE NAYAK 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 ofsalary 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
    Court in O.J.C. No. 1210 of 1995.

            Vinoo Bhagat for the Appellants.

            Shiv Sagar Tiwa'ri, for the Respondents.
G
            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.
                                                                                         F
          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          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 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
B   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.
c          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.
D
     R.P.                                                          Appeal allowed.