Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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/-) 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 and was the only person shortlisted for interview in which he appeared on 30.11.2016.

(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 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".

8.1 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.