Gujarat High Court
Gujarat National Law University vs Patel Manoj Prakashbhai on 24 April, 2018
Author: Anant S. Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave, Biren Vaishnav
C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 923 of 2017
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21629 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
===========================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
===========================================
GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
Versus
PATEL MANOJ PRAKASHBHAI
===========================================
Appearance:
MR UDAYAN P VYAS(1302) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR HEMANG M SHAH(5399) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
===========================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Page 1 of 23
C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 24/04/2018
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)
1. This appeal arises out of a C.A.V Judgment dated 17.04.2017. By the judgment under challenge, the original petitioner (respondent-herein) succeeded before the Learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge held that the respondent herein/petitioner is entitled to be continued in appointment as per Letter of Appointment dated 31.12.2013, however only up to 01.01.2019, on his completing five years' fixed term appointment as per the regulations, in the pay-scale of Rs.15,600/- 39,100/- with grade pay of Rs.5,400/-.
2. The facts in brief are as under:
2.1 The Gujarat National Law University, the appellant herein, issued an advertisement dated 16.09.2011 for the post of "Head Budget, Accounts and Finance / Assistant Finance Officer" in the pay-scale of Rs.15,600 - 39,100/-
grade pay Rs.5,400/-. The appointment was initially for a period of five years. The respondent herein applied for the said post. On undergoing a selection process an Appointment Order was issued by the University dated 02.01.2012. The appointment letter offered the respondent herein a fixed term appointment on the position of Head Budget, Accounts & Finance Officer / Assistant Finance Officer. The pay-scale that was offered to him was that of Page 2 of 23 C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENT Rs.9,300 - 34,800/- with grade pay of Rs.4,600/-. It was a pay-scale lower than the one that was advertised. The letter further mentioned that after successful completion of three years service, the appointee may be placed in the scale of Rs.15,600 - 39,100/- with grade pay of Rs.5,400/-. Effective date of appointment was shown as 02.01.2012 and the expiration date of appointment was shown as 31.12.2017. The fixed term appointment was for five year period, of which, the first year was to be considered as probation. By a letter dated 24.01.2013 from the University the respondent was informed that his service stood confirmed on completion of the period of probation, in accordance with the letter of appointment.
2.2 The respondent made a representation to the University on 29.01.2013 immediately on his confirmation, requesting the University to grant him the pay-scale of Rs.15,600 - 39,100/- with grade pay of Rs.5,400/-, in accordance with the scale originally advertised. By a communication dated 06.03.2013, the respondent was informed that since the Executive Council meeting which was held on 05.12.2011 had approved the placement in the pay-scale of Rs.9,300- 34,800/-, and the condition was that he would get the pay-scale as requested after three years of satisfactory experience, unless the respondent completes three years, he cannot be considered for being placed in the pay-scale of Rs.15,600/- 39,100/- (Grade Pay 5,400/-) Page 3 of 23 C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENT 2.3 On 31.12.2013, the University issued another letter of appointment appointing the petitioner on the same post, however, with the pay scale of Rs.15,600-39,100/- (G.P 5,400/-). The effective date of appointment was shown as 01.01.2014 and the expiration date of appointment was shown as 31.12.2019. The Appointment Order also indicated that it was a fixed term appointment for five years with one year probation. A separate letter of an even date was issued to inform the respondent that his pay-scale with effect from 01.01.2014 was Rs.15,600 -39,100 (G.P.5,400/-). Other terms and conditions would be as per the appointment letter dated 02.01.2012. Some time on 21.10.2016, according to the respondent,the Director of the University informed him that his contract was to end on 31.12.2016 in accordance with the first letter of appointment dated 02.01.2012. According to the University, the expiration date mentioned in the letter of 02.01.2012 as 31.12.2017 was a typographical error. The respondent herein was also informed that an advertisement was to appear for the post of Section Officer (Accounts) in the pay-scale of Rs.9,300 - 34,800/- (G.P 4,200/-) and the respondent may choose to apply. The respondent raised an objection pointing out that, in accordance with the letter of appointment dated 31.12.2013, his tenure was to end on 31.12.2019 and not on 31.12.2016. However, when the advertisement appeared on 27.10.2016 for the post of Section Officer (Accounts), in the pay-scale of Rs.9,300 -34, 800/- that is lower post, the respondent applied for the post, appeared in the written test Page 4 of 23 C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENT and was the only person shortlisted for interview in which he appeared on 30.11.2016.
2.4 Apprehending that the respondent would face termination of service, in accordance with the University's perception of his appointment coming to an end on 31.12.2016, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the petition which has been the subject-matter of the impugned judgement. It was the case of the respondent - original petitioner that, his term of appointment was up to 31.12.2019 and therefore, he prayed before the learned Single Judge for quashing and setting aside the oral action of termination on 31.12.2016 and for a declaration that he was entitled to continue in the employment of the appellant University up to 31.12.2019.
2.5 The respondent's case before the learned Single Judge was that it was not open for the appellant - University to act arbitrarily and terminate the respondent's service in violation of the terms of contract. According to the counsel for the respondent- original petitioner, when his appointment letter clearly stipulated that he was to be continued up to 31.12.2019, his contractual appointment could not be terminated before such date. It was his further case that, the University was a statutory authority and the Letter of Appointment clearly stated that it was a fixed term appointment and could be extended. The Letter of Appointment, according to the respondent further provided Page 5 of 23 C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENT that it was an appointment subject to the provisions of the Gujarat National Law University Regulations.
2.6 It was further pleaded in the petition that, when the respondent / original petitioner was interviewed, he was orally told that the issue of conversion of contractual appointments into permanent appointments was under
consideration and therefore, the respondent would be made permanent in course of time, however until then, his contractual appointment would continue.
2.7 The Appellant University in such petition filed a reply opposing the petition raising several contentions. It was the case of the University that, pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.09.2011, the Appointment Letter was issued on 02.01.2012 and in accordance with the five year term stipulated in such Letter of Appointment, the effective date of termination would be 01.01.2017 or 31.12.2016. The University contended that through inadvertence, a mistake of a most trifling nature came to be committed by the University administration by stating the expiration date of appointment as 31.12.2017 instead of 31.12.2016. The University further contended that the respondent herein had consciously accepted a lower pay-scale when so appointed.
However, he was granted the pay-scale of Rs.15,600/- 39,100/- and a Letter of Appointment dated 31.12.2013 was issued. According to the University, though no fresh Letter of Appointment needed to be issued, as it was only the pay-
Page 6 of 23 C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENTscale that was changed, the University committed another mistake by issuing a fresh letter showing the expiry date as 31.12.2019. According to the University, even if the five year term was to be taken from 01.01.2014, the term would come to an end on 31.12.2018. Therefore, it was the case of the University that the University had made mistakes which went unnoticed.
2.8 According to the University even the respondent had accepted and understood the Letter of Appointment dated 31.12.2013 to record only a revision of pay-scale and not extension of term because when the respondent applied for the post of a Finance Officer pursuant to an advertisement in the set up of the Swarnim Gujarat Sports University, the respondent did not refer to the Letter of Appointment dated 31.12.2013 but to that of 02.01.2012. Reliance is placed by the University on the format of the application form produced together with the reply affidavit. According to the University, it was when the Director was reviewing the appointment of employees on a contract basis, did the University notice that the expiration date of appointment of 31.12.2017 was erroneously typed when in fact it should have been 31.12.2016. According to the University, the second Letter of Appointment dated 31.12.2013 would not confer fresh term of appointment of five years.
2.9 Faced with these rival contentions, the respondent succeeded before the learned Single Judge in terms of the Page 7 of 23 C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENT prayer being granted as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the Gujarat National Law University is in appeal before us.
3. Shri Udayan Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant - University assailed the order of the learned Single Judge on several counts, briefly stated as under:
3.1 According to Shri Vyas, the learned Single Judge,in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has granted, what was in fact in the realm of a nature of a contract of specific performance.
Attention is drawn to the prayers made by the respondent - original petitioner in this context. Learned advocate Shri Vyas, invited our attention to paragraph 43 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in this regard and the directions so issued by the learned Single Judge.
3.2 Inviting our attention to the advertisement dated 16.09.2011, pursuant to which the respondent applied, Shri Vyas contended that though the pay-scale advertised was that of Rs.15,600-39,100/- from the Letter of Acceptance signed by the respondent, a concluded contract was complete and once the respondent had accepted the appointment on lower scale of pay, he could not wriggle out of such an acceptance and contend that he was entitled to be continued till 31/12/2018 or 1/1/2019.
Page 8 of 23 C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENT3.3 Shri Vyas also invited our attention to the fact that once his representation for getting a higher pay-scale was rejected, and the fact that while applying for the post in the Swarnim Gujarat Sports University, since the respondent had not mentioned his term of appointment, it was understood that he was aware that his five year term would come to an end on 31.12.2016.
3.4 Shri Vyas further contended that, the fact that the respondent had applied pursuant to an advertisement of the University dated 27.10.2016 on the lower post of Section Officer (Accounts), in the pay-scale of Rs.9,300 - 34,800/-, such an act suggested that the respondent was very much aware that since his tenure in the present post was to end on 31.12.2016, it was necessary for him to switch over to an alternative engagement.
4. Mr. Hemang Shah, learned advocate for the original petitioner on the other hand submitted that, it was obviously not a mistake of trifling nature, as suggested by the University. The second order of appointment dated 31.12.2013 was a responsible conscious decision. Had the University thought that the term was to expire on 31.12.2016 and not on 31.12.2018, they ought to have corrected the first Letter of Appointment itself, if the University was of the opinion that in fact the term was up to 31.12.2016.
Page 9 of 23 C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENT4.1 Shri Shah also invited our attention to Clause-6 of the order of appointment stipulating special conditions/ entitlements which suggested that in case of inconsistency or conflict between the terms of this appointment and the G.N.L.U Regulations, the letter shall prevail. Shri Shah, invited our attention to the regulations of the G.N.L.U as referred to by the learned Single Judge and in support of the reasoning of the learned Single Judge contended that when the regulations particularly regulation 17(6) is read together with regulation 17(12)(b), the regulations provide that an appointment shall be for a period of five years with one year period of probation and therefore, when the second letter of appointment is seen in such context the five year period would end on 31.12.2018.
4.2 Shri Shah also invited our attention to a Resolution dated 19.03.2015, particularly to Clause-3 which suggested that the staff serving on a five year contract appointed on the basis of the advertisements made by the University shall continue to serve on the existing positions at the same scale and grade pay. Upon completion of the five year contract, the services of the staff shall be considered as ended. These staff members shall have no right of any extension or renewal of their contracts against permanent posts. According to Shri Shah, therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in holding that it was clear that the policy decision was taken by the General council not to renew the fixed term contract and to fill in those posts of teaching and non Page 10 of 23 C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENT teaching staff by fresh advertisement. Nowhere did such recommendations speak of curtailing the period of existing contract. Shri Shah has extensively taken us through the reasonings of the learned Single Judge and in support thereof in a nutshell canvassed as under:
(A) It cannot be said that the University had committed a mistake. Even assuming that the University did commit a mistake, that was never rectified. The Letter of Appointment issued first in point of time was not corrected, and even when one looks at the correspondence that took place, when the respondent made a request for the higher pay-scale, when such representation was rejected by a communication dated 06.03.2013, though an extensive reference was made to the advertisement, no correction was made even at that stage.
(B) A conjoint reading of both the Letters of Appointment unequivocally suggest that the period of appointment was of five years with one year of probation, and therefore, even taking into account a mistake if any, the term of appointment would end on 31.12.2018 and it cannot be read to construe it as ending on 31.12.2016.
(C) The mistake cannot be said to be a mistake of the most trifling nature when it was not corrected even on Page 11 of 23 C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENT two occasions.
(D) Mere participation for selection on the post of Section Officer (Accounts) would not be a circumstance for holding that the respondent herein was aware that his contract was ending on 31.12.2016.
5. Having given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the following undisputed facts emerge from the record:
(I) The First Letter of Appointment dated 02.01.2012 stipulated the expiry date as 31.12.2017. The appointment was a fixed term appointment for a period of five years including the first year to be a probation period.
(II) By a letter dated 24.01.2013, the respondent's probation period was confirmed.
(III) By a letter dated 31.12.2013, the University extended the term mentioning the expiry date as 31.12.2019 with the revised pay of Rs.15,600-
39,100/-.
(IV) When the respondent made a representation on 29.01.2013 for a pay-scale as originally advertised, the University by a communication dated 06.03.2013 rejected such representation, extensively relying and Page 12 of 23 C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENT quoting the terms of the appointment order. Be it noted that, on all three occasions the University did not notice what it calls "a typographical error or a mistake of a most trifling nature".
(V) Clause-6 of the Appointment Order categorically provided that if there was any inconsistency or conflict between the terms of appointment and the regulations, the G.N.L.U regulations would prevail. The learned Single Judge in our opinion rightly so has considered these regulations namely Regulation 17(6) and Regulation 17(12)(b) and in para 16, 17 and 18 has held as under:
"16. Regulation 17 of section III of the Gujarat National Law University Administrative and Staff Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) provides for mode of appointment to administrative or ministerial posts, which also provides for initial appointment for all administrative and ministerial staff for duration of five years with one year probation period. Subsequent extension of the contract is to be made on the basis of needs of the University, performance standards and any other criteria as may be fixed by the Executive Council, from time to time. The contract extension may be granted for a period of five years or three years, as determined by the Contract Extension Committee.
It also provides that the Contract Extension Committee shall be composed of the Director, Registrar, Head of Academic Affairs and two members of the Executive Council as nominated by the Executive Council.Page 13 of 23 C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENT
Regulation 17(7) of the Regulations provides that administrative and ministerial staff members appointed prior to the adoption of these regulations shall continue to remain in their current posts and receive existing benefits until the expiry of their term. However, any renewal of their contract shall be subject to their fulfilling the qualifications as prescribed by the Government of Gujarat.
Regulation 17(9) of the Regulations provides for appointment, where the power of appointment of staff rests with the Director upon approval by the Executive Council. Each staff member shall receive a letter of appointment and signed by the Registrar or by an official in the name of the Registrar. It should contain expressly or by reference all the terms and conditions of employment.
The effective date of appointment is provided in Regulation 17(10), which enumerates that the appointment of every staff member shall take effect from the date on which the staff member starts to perform his or her duties.
Regulation 17(12) provides for three types of appointments, viz. (i) short-term appointment (ii) fixed-term appointment and (iii) permanent appointment.
Short-term appointment is where the total period of service is expected to be less than one year. It does not carry any expectation of renewal of appointment or of conversion to any other type of appointment.
Fixed-term appointment has expiration date specified in the letter of appointment which may be for a term of five years.Page 14 of 23 C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENT
The subject of permanent appointment at the time of enacting these Regulations was suspended till the time as resolved by the General Council on February 27, 2016, not to convert any fixed term appointment into permanent appointment from amongst those who were working on fixed terms.
17. The Resolution of the Executive Council was put up for discussion in the 14th Meeting of the General Council on February 27, 2016 and it resolved to accept the recommendations of the Permanent Appointment Committee, which had provided to fill in the approved posts for non-
teaching staff members through fresh advertisement. Those who were appointed on five years' basis would have no right to get extension or renewal on completion of five years' period.
It, thus, makes it clear that the policy decision is taken by the General Council not to renew the fixed term contract and to fill in those posts of teaching and non-teaching staff members by fresh advertisement. It does not speak of curtailing period of existing contract. Corollary to this is the question whether the contract with the petitioner has not already ended on December 31, 2016, or at the best, by January 01, 2017, since the same had begun on fixed term on January 02, 2012.
18. As is also quite clear from the first letter that in the event of any conflict in the letter of appointment and in the Regulations, the Regulations would have precedence over the letter of appointment. The Regulations also provide that such appointment shall be for a period of five years and with one year probation period. Reading the same with Regulation 17(12)(b), which defines fixed-term appointment, it is enumerated therein that the letter of appointment should be granted for a fixed period of five years and, therefore, the initial appointment would end on January 01, Page 15 of 23 C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENT 2017. Reference at this stage is a must of the second letter of appointment issued on December 31, 2013. Coupled with this, there is the necessity to read Regulation 17(6) of the said Regulations, which says that subsequent extension of the contract shall be made on the basis of needs of the University, performance standards and any other criteria as may be fixed by the Executive Council. Such extension could be granted for a period of five years or three years, as may be determined by the Contract Extension Committee. The constitution of the Contract Extension Committee is also provided which consists of the Director, Registrar, Head of Academic Affairs and two members of the Executive Council as nominated by the Executive Council. "
6. With a view to avoid repetitions of reasons, since we agree with such reasons as advanced by the learned Single Judge we reproduce paras 16,17 and 18 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Reading of such interpretation based on the Regulations,it would certainly indicate that the terms of the regulations provide that the period of appointment will be five years. Regulation 17(12) provides for three types of appointments and reading of such regulations indicate that a fixed term appointment will be for a term of five years.
7. The learned Single Judge in the judgment has considered Regulation 25 which provides that the Appointing Authority may terminate the service of an employee at any time prior to the expiry of the term of contract by giving notice of 15 days. The learned Single Judge opined that none of the grounds which need Page 16 of 23 C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENT invocation of Regulation 25, namely exigencies of service requiring abolition of posts, that the employee does not meet the highest standard of academic and / or professional competence, integrity and efficiency or for the employee's health reasons existed so as to warrant termination. Fruitful it is to quote the learned Single Judge's remark that, "
surely, this sequence of event leading to grant of extension cannot be said by any stretch of imagination a mistake of a most trifling nature".
8. What therefore emerges on the reading of the judgement of the learned Single Judge moreover after extensively going through the paper book of the petition, with the Letters of Appointments annexed to such petition and the contents of the reply that the University had after issuance of appointment letter dated 02.01.2012 and 31.12.2013 and letter dated 24.01.2013, representation dated 29.01.2013 and rejection dated 06.03.2013, in context of the surrounding circumstances is that the appointment of the respondent herein, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge was a fixed five year appointment as the period of appointment was clearly stipulated in the order. The appointment with one of its conditions stated that in case of a conflict in the terms of appointment and the regulations, the regulations will prevail and therefore in our opinion the learned Single Judge was right in declaring that the respondent is entitled to be continued in appointment as per the letter of 31.12.2013 up to January 01, 2019.
Page 17 of 23 C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENT8.1 What is evident from the correspondence is that first letter dated 2/1/2012 provided the expiry period as 31/12/2017. Assuming that the stand of the University that the term was to actually end on 31/12/2016,is accepted,the subsequent conduct,cannot be termed as " a mistake of a most trifling nature". The explanation to justify this as a mistake or a typographical error is confounding in light of the subsequent correspondence dated 6/3/2013 rejecting the representation relying on the terms of appointment, but not "noticing" the mistake or error. Then once again issuing a letter dated 31/12/2013. Certainly all these acts were consciously taken and cannot be branded to be "trifling mistakes". The Learned Single Judge has not granted any relief beyond what the terms of letter of appointment stipulate and hence the only direction to continue the respondent, as per the letter, upto 1/1/2019.
9. As far as the learned Counsel for the appellant's submission that this declaration amounted to enforcing a contract which was in the realm of specific performance, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge was right in the perception that the appellant University was a State within the meaning of Article-12 and therefore, was bound to act fairly in discharge of its obligation as an employer. Otherwise also, the Gujarat National Law University is a creation of the statute namely the Gujarat National Law University Act, 2003 and is expected to act in a just and a Page 18 of 23 C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENT fair manner while dealing on the administrative side. Necessarily, therefore, the regulations which govern the appointment of the respondent have a statutory flavour and therefore, amenable to being enforced in writ jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge has extensively relied on a law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in such case and held that, when there is a breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India power under 226 of the Constitution can be exercised without fetter. Adjudication of the validity of a termination order passed by the public authority on the touchstone of arbitrariness is not in the realm of the contract and when illegality, perversity, unreasonableness, unfairness or irrationality vitiate the action, the Court would not step back to restore the sanctity of the letter of appointment in favour of the employee.
10. The Learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has just done that and we fully agree with the view that has been so taken by the Court,in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India. Accordingly, present Letters Patent Appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.
11. Before we part, we need to take note of certain subsequent events which have taken place. It appears that pursuant to some inquiry proceedings initiated against the respondent in August 2017, the respondent was placed under Suspension by an order dated 29.12.2017. On 20.1.2018, the respondent received an offer of employment Page 19 of 23 C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENT from another Institute. The respondent, therefore, made a proposal to settle the issue and withdraw the petition itself. As is recorded in an order dated 25.01.2018 of a co- ordinate bench of this Court, the respondent had desired to put an end to the entire litigation. Rather than speak about itself, let the order so speak. We, therefore, reproduce the order dated 25.01.2018, which reads as under:
"Today, when the present appeal is taken up for further hearing, Shri Hemang Shah, learned advocate for the original petitioner has stated at the bar that as the original petitioner is getting job in another institution where he has to join / resume from 01.02.2018 and also to put an end the entire litigation, he is ready and willing to withdraw the main Special Civil Application, provided the original petitioner is granted all the benefits flowing from the first order of appointment dated 02.01.2012. He has stated at the bar that the aforesaid shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the original petitioner in the present Letters Patent Appeal, provided the aforesaid offer is positively considered. The request prima facie seems to be reasonable, more particularly, when appellant university, as such, has not disputed the first order of appointment dated 02.01.2012 (however subject to the contention that even as per said order dated 02.01.2012, the term would have ended on 02.01.2017). However, all other terms and conditions are not disputed. However, it is ultimately for the University to consider the above, more particularly, when the original petitioner has made aforesaid offer to put an end to the entire litigation and as he is getting job in another establishment where he has to resume duty from 01.02.2018. Let, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant get necessary Page 20 of 23 C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENT instruction from the appropriate authority of the University. We request the learned counsel for the appellant to place the present order before the appropriate authority for its consideration and while considering the offer made by the learned counsel for the original petitioner recorded herein above. It is expected that the decision shall be taken at the earliest and preferably on or before 30.01.2018. Stand over to 31.01.2018."
11.1 In pursuance of such order the University passed an order dated 30.01.2018 stating that the respondent would be entitled to all his dues and other monetary claims upto 31.12.2016 being the date on which the contractual appointment pursuant to the letter dated 02.01.2012 was to come to an end. This, however, was subject to adjustment of amount already paid beyond a period of 31.12.2016. The order further said that upon such reconciliation of dues the GNLU may consider dropping of on going Departmental Proceedings. This Court by an order dated 05.02.2018 recorded that prima facie the order dated 25.01.2018 was not taken in true spirit and therefore it was directed that the respondent-original petitioner be continued in service based on the appointment letter dated 31.12.2013 and paid emoluments. The respondent was, however, permitted to resume duties but placed on full pay leave. The Court was, therefore, constrained to take a stern view. That order was a subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court by the appellant in SLP(C) 7389 of 2018. Since the parties undertook to argue the appeal before us the Supreme Court by its order dated 02.04.2018 requested us to take up the Page 21 of 23 C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENT appeal and dispose it as expeditiously as possible. It is under these circumstances that we heard the appeal finally.
11.2 Even thereafter, a suggestion was put to the appellant - GNLU through the learned counsel appearing on its behalf so as to put an end to the controversy by ending up the service of the respondent upto 30.04.2018 and to pay all his dues by conferring benefits of the 7th Pay Commission, so accepted by GNLU, with effect from 31.12.2013 to 30.04.2018 only. However, we are informed by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the University that the authority has reservations and it was conveyed that the respondent was only entitled to such benefits upto 31.12.2016. We were, therefore, left with no option but to hear the case on merits.
11.3 We note that the departmental proceedings and the order of suspension are not a subject matter of challenge before us and therefore we leave it for the respondent to take recourse to take suitable action, if so advised, without expressing any opinion on the action of the University, because, it is not within our purview to do so.
12. For the reasons stated in the judgement, we uphold the order of the learned Single Judge. Present Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. As recorded in our earlier order dated 05.02.2018, we direct the appellant - GNLU to continue the respondent herein - original petitioner in Page 22 of 23 C/LPA/923/2017 CAV JUDGMENT service based on the appointment letter dated 31.12.2013 and service conditions as on date shall be maintained till an appropriate decision with regard to departmental proceedings and suspension are taken at the next meeting of the Executive Council. Both the Civil Applications also stand dismissed in view of the dismissal of the main appeal.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J) (BIREN VAISHNAV, J) NAIR SMITA V. Page 23 of 23