Muralidhar Swain vs Vice Chancellor
2025 Latest Caselaw 9549 Ori

Orissa High Court

Muralidhar Swain vs Vice Chancellor on 30 October, 2025

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                        W.P.(C) NO. 15054 OF 2024

            In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
            Constitution of India.
                                        ------------

            Muralidhar Swain                                    ....                Petitioner

                                                -Versus-

            Vice Chancellor, Utkal University,                  ....             Opp. Parties
            Bhubaneswar & Others


            Advocates appeared in this case:

             For Petitioner         :      Mr. Ramesh Chandra Nayak, Advocate

             For Opp. Parties      :       M/s. Tarananda Pattanayak & M. Ojha,
                                           Advocates
                                                 ------------

            CORAM:

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

                                            JUDGMENT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing & Judgment :: 30.10.2025

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J.

Grievance of the petitioner is short & concrete. He is invoking the

writ jurisdiction of this Court for laying a challenge to order dated

04.01.2024, which reads as under:

"In pursuance of the orders passed by the Vice-

Chancellor/dated-02.01.2024 on the recommendation of the Committee constituted for this purpose, Sri Muralidhar Swain. Ex.-Senior Assistant is promoted to the post of Section Officer Level-II in the scale of pay (PB-2) Rs.9,300/- to Rs.34,800/- plus Grade Pay Rs.4,200/- with usual D.A. and other allowances as admissible under the rules of the University from time to time with effect from 15.12.2010 at par with his counterparts, subject to outcome of the final decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, in the vigilance appeal case.

The pay of Sri Swain shall be fixed notionally as attached to the promotional post."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the

promotion has been given to the next level vide impugned order, the

financial benefits have been denied notwithstanding that the effective date

of promotion is 15.12.2010; salary & emoluments payable to an

employee are his property and therefore, denying them unjustifiably

amounts to violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. He also

tells the Court that another person, namely, Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra,

who was convicted in a criminal case and whose criminal appeal is still

pending, has been granted promotion with retrospective effect and further

accorded all consequential benefits. Counsel invoking E.P. Royappa v.

State of Tamilnadu, AIR 1974 SC 555 says that the action of University

is absolutely unjust, arbitrary & discriminatory qua the petitioner.

Therefore, he seeks invalidation of that portion of the impugned order,

which denies financial benefits on the ground that vigilance case is

pending, after he having been acquitted at the hands of trial Court.

3. Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the University, in his

usual fairness, resists the petition contending that although petitioner was

acquitted in the criminal case, the prosecution has preferred appeal and

therefore, there is continuation of the criminal case; when criminal case is

thus pending, the University cannot be faltered in denying financial

benefits of promotion during such pendency. So far as discrimination is

concerned, he submits that many hands work in the University without

knowing each other and therefore, happening of such things are not

uncommon. Lastly, he submits that, in the fitness of things, the action of

the University should not be faltered and that the petitioner should await

till the State's criminal appeal is heard & decided.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused

the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter

for the following reasons:

4.1. Petitioner has been granted promotion, vide order dated 04.01.2024

with retrospective effect from 15.12.2010, is apparent from the impugned

order itself. When retrospective promotion is granted, the employer only

rectifies the mistake which he had committed to the detriment of

employee and therefore, ordinarily, in such a case, the principle of 'no

work, no pay' is not invocable. An argument to the contrary would

amount to placing premium on illegality. Mere pendency of criminal

appeal, petitioner having been acquitted in the criminal trial, cannot be a

ground for denying the financial benefits of promotion, in the absence of

any rule to the contrary. No contra rule is brought to the notice of this

Court, even when clarification was sought for, in that regard. Once

promotion is granted with retrospective effect there is no reason or rhyme

for denying its consequential benefits to the promotee, subject to all just

exceptions.

4.2. Petitioner was tried in a criminal case and acquitted. An acquittal

ordinarily removes the clog on the innocence of citizen. Merely because

criminal appeal is filed, the clog is not revived. Appeal against conviction

is one thing and appeal against acquittal is another. In the former, the

guilt having been proved, the status of conviction continues, although it

may be suspended in certain circumstances, as held by the Apex Court in

Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab, AIR 2007 SC 1003. In the case

of latter, the complete innocence remains intact with the person against

whom the appeal is filed after he secured acquittal. Be that as it may.

4.3. No explanation is offered by the University as to why Ashok

Kumar Mishra, who was convicted in criminal case after a full-fledged

trial, has been accorded promotion vide order dated 05.08.2022, that too

with retrospective effect from 07.03.2020 and further with all

consequential benefits. Merely because a criminal appeal is filed against

the order of conviction & sentence, the convict does not become an

innocent citizen, even when the same is stayed. It hardly needs to be

stated, an order of stay keeps conviction & sentence in a suspended

animation, but does not wipe it out. The action of the University against

the petitioner is grossly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of

India, which prohibits arbitrary & discriminatory action, as has been

discussed vide E.P. Royappa (supra). This is a fit case for levy of

exemplary costs, since University has acted very unfairly qua petitioner.

It ought to have conducted itself as a Model Employer vide Bhupendra

Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234. The Apex Court in

State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, 1985 AIR 356 has directed

payment of interest on the delayed dispersal of moneys payable to the

employees in public employment.

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds; the impugned order, to the extent it denies consequential benefits of

promotion accorded with retrospective effect, is set at naught. A writ of Mandamus issued to the OP No.1-University to compute & pay to the petitioner all financial benefits of retrospective promotion within a period of eight weeks with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and if delay is brooked the University shall pay interest at the rate of 2% per mensem. Further, University shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) only by way of exemplary costs to the petitioner within a period of 45 days which shall be recovered from the erring officials.

Web copy of the judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 30th day of October, 2025/Anisha

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack