JUDGMENT A. K. SAMANTARAY, J. — The petitioner, who was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the Utkal University of Culture has filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the opposite parties to fix his scale of pay maintaining parity with the scale of the Vice-Chancellors of the other Universities in accordance with the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as “UGC) Notification. 2. The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he was appointed Vice-Chancellor of the Utkal University of Culture (hereinafter referred to as “UUC”) after due process of selection and in accordance with decision of the Selection Committee his appointment order was issued by order of the Hon’ble Chancellor under Annexure-3 vide Notification No. 14023 dated 9th November, 2001. The petitioner’s appointment was for a term of three years. The petitioner assumed office on 26.11.2001 and retired from Vice-Chancellorship on 26.11.2004 after expiry of his term of office. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite expiry of the term, his scale of pay has not been fixed. The petitioner has submitted Annexure-10,. i.e., letter dated 22nd September, 1998 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Education), wherein the revised pay scale of the Vice-Chancellor was fixed at Rs. 25,000/- with effect from 01.01.1996. Thereafter, on 24th Decem¬ber, 1998, UGC has issued a letter to the Vice-Chancellors of all the Universities, Education Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories under Annexure-11 whereby the scale of pay of Vice-Chancellor was fixed at Rs. 25,000/- on revision. In paragraph 18, the petitioner specifically averred that the Vice-Chancellors in other Universities in the State of Orissa like Fakir Mohan University, Balasore, North Orissa University, Baripada, Biju Pattnaik University of Technology, Rourkela are getting salary of Rs. 25,000/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that his scale of pay has not been fixed and he is entitled to get salary of Rs. 25,000/- plus Dearness Allowance as admissible lest he would face hostile discrimination. Despite completion of the term his scale of pay has not been fixed. The further grievance of the petition¬er is despite the fact that this University is similar to the other Universities in the State in all respects; he has not been paid the salary at the equivalent scale. 3. Despite completion of the term his scale of pay has not been fixed. The further grievance of the petition¬er is despite the fact that this University is similar to the other Universities in the State in all respects; he has not been paid the salary at the equivalent scale. 3. Pursuant to notices issued by this Court, the University appeared in the case and filed counter affidavit. Though the State of Orissa was arrayed as O.P.No. 3 no counter affidavit has been filed. The Chancellor though arrayed, as O.P.No. 2 has not filed any counter affidavit. 4. The Registrar of UUC filed counter affidavit disputing the claim of the petitioner. In the said counter affidavit, it is stated that the implementation of UGC pay scale depends upon the grants received from the UGC. The UUC has not so far been eligible to receive grant from UGC, even though this University is recognized under Section 2 (6) of the UGC Act, 1956. 5. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the peti¬tioner that Annexure-6 is an agenda note for the 7th Vice-Chancellors’ Conference held in the year 2004. The Agenda No. XXIII is regarding salary of the Vice-Chancellors, wherein the agenda note was that Education Department had to issue clarification regarding salary payable to Vice-Chancellors and the further agenda was that the Vice-Chancellors and the further agenda was that the Vice-Chancellors are to draw salary at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- plus Dearness Allowance minus gross pension prior to communication subject to minimum total salary of Rs. 25,000/-. The said proceeding of the conference has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-8. With regard to the salary of the Vice-Chancellors, it is recorded in the proceeding that the Secretary, Department of Higher Education informed that it had been decided to fix the salary of the Vice-Chancellors at Rs. 25,000/- plus Dearness Allowance while they would not be able to draw any pension or T.I. The Secretary, Department of Tourism and Culture agreed to establish parity between the salary of Vice-Chancellor or UUC and the Vice-Chancellors of other Universities of the State. The learned counsel submitted that in this context, since there is conscious decision by the State Government to pay salary at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- to the Vice-Chancellor, non-fixation of the petitioner’s salary at Rs. 25,000/- is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. The learned counsel submitted that in this context, since there is conscious decision by the State Government to pay salary at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- to the Vice-Chancellor, non-fixation of the petitioner’s salary at Rs. 25,000/- is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party-University submitted during the course of hearing that UUC is an independent body and this University Statute does not permit salary to the Vice-Chancellor at the rate of Rs. 25,000/-. Since Chancellor had allowed salary to the Vice-Chancellor at the rate of Rs. 22,400/- under Annexure-5, the question of further review of salary of the petitioner does not arise. He further submitted that the UUC Statute has not yet been amended permitting salary at the equivalent scale and as such this writ petition is bereft of any merit and liable to be dismissed. 7. To us the above submission of the Opposite party ap¬pears to be fallacious. It would be apparent from Annexures-1 & 2 that the UUC was established pursuant to an Act of the State Legislature, for which Notification was published on 12.08.1999. This Utkal University of Culture Act (Orissa Act 9), 1999 was legislated to provide for establishment and incorporation of UUC in the State of Orissa and for the matters connected therewith and for matters incidental thereto. Section 7(1) of the said Act states that the Governor of the State of Orissa by virtue of his Office shall be the Chancellor of the University. Section 8 of the Statute prescribes who should be the Officer of the Universi¬ty. The Vice-Chancellor shall be one of such Officer of the University. The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chan¬cellor on the recommendation of the Committee constituted for the purpose by the Chancellor. The Office of the Chancellor, UUC issued the Notification dated 9th November, 2001 which goes to show that in an exercise of powers conferred by Section 9(1) of the UUC Act, 1999, the Chancellor has appointed the petitioner for a period of three years with effect from the date he assumes charge or till he attains the age of 65 years. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the regularly selected Vice-Chancellor of UUC. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the regularly selected Vice-Chancellor of UUC. The petitioner, as per Annexure-4, assumed charge of Vice-Chancellor of UUC on 26th November, 2001 and he retired from the Office on 26.11.2004 after completion of the term for which he was appointed. 8. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the peti¬tioner that Government of India through the Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Education) issued the letter to UGC on 22nd September, 1998 under Annexure-10 indicating the revised pay scale of Vice-Chancellor would be Rs.25,000/- (fixed) with effect from 01.01.1996. This scale was fixed much prior to the establishment of the University of Culture. On 24th December, 1998, UGC under Annexure-11 has prescribed the scale of pay of the Vice-Chancellors to be Rs.25,000/- (fixed). From Annexure-2, it appears that on 09.06.1999 the Utkal University of Culture Act came into force. In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the University (O.P. No.1) it has been averred that UGC pay scale depends upon UGC grants and this University has not been eligible to receive UGC grant even though this University is recognized under Section 2(6) of the UGC Act, 1956. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that admittedly UGC has given recognition to this University and the University Fund created under Section 28(2) of the UUC Act, 1999 receives grant from numerous sources like grant from Central Government, State Gov¬ernment and other institutions, UGC is only one of the sources. In that view of the matter, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ground advanced by the O.P. No.1 for not extending the revised scale of pay to the petitioner for non-receipt of aid from the UGC is not at all tenable. It was further argued and submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in Annexure-5 the Chancellor has issued letter dated 23.09.2004 regarding the drawal of salary of the petition¬er. A bare perusal of the said Annexure-5, it is noticed that the clarification issued by the Chancellor which says that the Vice-Chancellor may draw salary of Rs.22,400/- plus admissible Dear¬ness Allowance minus the pension received by him for the time being. This letter neither speaks of the fixation of the salary of the petitioner nor directs what should be the scale of pay that the petitioner would receive. This letter neither speaks of the fixation of the salary of the petitioner nor directs what should be the scale of pay that the petitioner would receive. The notification of appoint¬ment under Annexure-3 also does not reveal as to at which rate the petitioner should be paid his salary. In fact, no employee can be made to superannuate/retire from office without being informed as to his exact scale of pay. It appears to us that not fixing the scale of pay of the petitioner despite his retirement is grossly arbitrary. The Office Order dated 27.02.2006 as per Annexure-17 has been filed by way of additional affidavit to the writ petition by the petitioner and this Office Order was passed in exercise of the power conferred on the Chancellor under Sec¬tion 9(6) of the UUC Act, 1999 read with the statutes 10(1) of the UUC Statute, 2001 and after taking into consideration the rationale of the recommendation of the Government of Orissa, Tourism and Culture Department vide letter No.3859 TC dated 6th December, 2005 the Chancellor fixed the scale of pay of the Vice-Chancellor at Rs.25,000/- and Dearness Allowance, as admissible from time to time. This scale of pay was given to the subsequent incumbent, the present petitioner, who is at present continuing as Vice-Chancellor. No reply/affidavit has been filed by opposite parties to draw a different conclusion that this scale was fixed taking into consideration the decision of the State Government pursuant to the opinion expressed in 7th Vice-Chancellors’ Con¬ference. In the Conference, the Secretary, Department of Tourism and Culture had agreed to establish parity in scale of pay of Vice-Chancellors of the State. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the O.P. No.1-University it is admitted that Secretary had agreed to maintain parity and Government Order would be issued shortly. In pursuance of the decision, under Annexure-16, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Chancellor in his letter dated 27th September, 2004 to the Principal Secretary to Government of Orissa in Department of Tourism and Culture wrote the letter regarding fixation of salary of the Vice-Chan¬cellor. It indicates that the matter was discussed in the 7th Vice-Chancellors’ Conference held at Raj Bhawan where the Secre¬tary had stated that Government Order maintaining parity of pay between Vice-Chancellor of UUC and other Universities of the State would be issued immediately. But such an order was not issued by them. It indicates that the matter was discussed in the 7th Vice-Chancellors’ Conference held at Raj Bhawan where the Secre¬tary had stated that Government Order maintaining parity of pay between Vice-Chancellor of UUC and other Universities of the State would be issued immediately. But such an order was not issued by them. Hence, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Chancellor requested the Principal Secretary to expedite the action. To our query, the learned Addl.Government Advocate re¬plied that there is no decision contrary to what had been agreed upon by the Secretary, Department of Tourism and Culture in the 7th Vice-Chancellors’ Conference and in fact as we find the very decision has been implemented ultimately under Annexure-17 with¬out any amendment to the University Statute in the case of suc¬ceeding Vice-Chancellor. It was stated at Bar that in the case of the Vice-Chancellors of all other Universities including the recently created Ravenshaw University are getting the salary of Rs.25,000/-. The counsel for the opposite parties did not contro¬vert this statement. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the salary of Rs.25,000/- with effect from his date of joining till his term expired. We therefore, allow the writ petition and mandate the opposite parties to fix petitioner’s salary at Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of his assuming the office till the date of expiry of his term and disburse the differential salary after adjusting the salary he has already received. The opposite parties are directed to complete the entire exercise, as mandated within a period for four months from the date of this order. 10. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. B. P. DAS, J. I agree. Petition disposed of.