JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Krishi Vishav ViIdyalaya through its Registrar, first respondent in the writ petition (in short ‘the respondent-University’), is in appeal against the judgment dated 20.9.2010, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No.16703 of 2008, whereby the petition has been allowed and the impugned order Annexure A-19 to the writ petition quashed and respondent No.1 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the petitioner’) held entitled to the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700 and other consequential benefits, on the ground that the same is against law and facts of the case. 2. It has been claimed that on his own request the petitioner has been permanently absorbed as Coach in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 and prior to that his services were taken on deputation in the University on the condition that either he may opt for the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 prescribed for the post of Volleyball Coach on the establishment of the respondent-University or draw the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500, the scale on which he was drawing his salary as Volleyball Coach in his parent Organization, i.e. Sports Authority of India (in short ‘SAI’). Since the scale of Rs.3000-4500 was advantageous to the petitioner, therefore, he was allowed to draw his salary in the said pay scale purely as a special case and personal to him. He was never placed in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700 and rather his pay was ordered to be drawn against the vacant post of Deputy Students’ Welfare Officer on the establishment of the respondent-University, which is a higher post and was in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.3700-5700. It has, therefore, been urged that the above facts duly proved on record, have not been appreciated by learned Single Judge in its right perspective while allowing the writ petition and quashing the order Annexure A-19 whereby the petitioner was ordered to be absorbed as Volleyball Coach on the establishment of the respondent-University in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 (revised as Rs.10000-15200 with effect from 1.1.1996). 3. 3. It is seen from the judgment impugned in the present appeal that learned Single Judge after taking note of the facts of the case and also the terms and conditions on which the services of the petitioner were ordered to be taken on deputation and that his salary was ordered to be drawn against the post of Deputy Students’ Welfare Officer in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700 and further that his salary was not fixed in the said scale and rather vide the impugned order dated 13.3.2001 (Annexure A-19) he was placed in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 retrospectively, has observed therein as under : “6. Petitioner was happily working with the Sports Authority of India. On request he had been called to serve the University which he did to their satisfaction. He established the department and various facilities in the respondent-University. Only on their request did he come to serve the University. From the very beginning he had made it clear that he would be willing to work in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700. He gave up his posting only on such terms and conditions which were monetarily beneficial to him. Respondents’ authorities also took affirmative action in this regard. They ordered his salary to be drawn against the post which was in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700. In compliance of the terms and conditions petitioner also exercised his option. He continued to work under the hope and assurance of being awarded higher pay scale. It took the University more than 6 years to decide his representation. The State cannot be allowed to behave in this manner. They took best out of him and yet did not pay what was legitimately expected by him in terms of Annexure A-5. 7. Consequently, the action of the respondents in passing the office order dated 13.3.2001 is quashed. Petitioner is held entitled to pay scale of Rs.3700-5700. He shall also be entitled to all revised scales. 8. Respondents authorities are directed to take consequential action within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. It is clarified that arrears, if any, be also paid during the aforesaid period, failing which, thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum.” 4. The record reveals that the petitioner was appointed as Volleyball Coach in SAI, New Delhi. It is clarified that arrears, if any, be also paid during the aforesaid period, failing which, thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum.” 4. The record reveals that the petitioner was appointed as Volleyball Coach in SAI, New Delhi. Annexure A-12 to the writ petition reveals that the parent Organization, i.e., SAI attached the services of the petitioner with the respondent-University as Senior Volleyball Coach under SFS Field Station Scheme of Government of India and he started working in the respondent-University from 21.9.1988 onward. The respondent-University later-on requested the Director General of SAI vide letter dated 29.1.1994 (Annexure A-1 to the writ petition) to place the services of the petitioner at its disposal on deputation basis on discontinuation of the practice of posting Coaches at the Field Stations. Relevant portion of this communication reads as follows : “2. Shri K.C. Rana has contributed a lot during his period in developing sports and co-curricular activities at this University. He is also discharging his duties to the entire satisfaction of the administration and students community. 3. Vide your letter No.38-13/CS/SAI/92/2325 dated 24.12.92 to the address of Students’ Welfare Officer of this university, it has been informed that SAI has discontinued practice of posting Coaches at the field Stations of the Universities. 4. As this University is still in infancy stage in the promotion of Sports and Co-curricular activities, the University intends to utilize services of Sh. K.C. Rana, Volleyball Coach here in a more befitting manner and for this purpose, the University is prepared to take his services on deputation as Coach initially for a period of one year in the first instance on standard terms and conditions of deputation, if it is not possible to continue him on the present terms and conditions of his posting in this University.” 5. The request so made by the respondent-University found favour with the parent Organization of the petitioner, which has agreed to place his services at the disposal of the University on deputation basis for one year subject to the terms and conditions enclosed to its letter dated 16.3.1994 (Annexure A-2 to the writ petition). The condition relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal, read as follow : “(2) Pay:- During the period of deputation Sh. The condition relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal, read as follow : “(2) Pay:- During the period of deputation Sh. K. C. Rana, will have the option either to get his pay fixed in the deputation post under the operation of the normal rules or to draw pay of the post held by him in the parent department plus a deputation (duty) allowance in accordance with and subject to the conditions, as modified from time to time and such other general or special orders issued by the Ministry of Finance.” 6. The respondent-University in turn conveyed its acceptance to the terms and conditions on which the parent Organization of the petitioner had agreed to place his services on deputation. It can be inferred so from the letter dated 17.2.1995 (Annexure A-3 to the writ petition). Consequently, vide letter dated 19.5.1995 (Annexure A-4 to the writ petition), the petitioner was ordered to be placed on the establishment of the respondent-University on deputation basis and relieved from SAI in the afternoon of 22.4.1995 on the terms and conditions referred to above. The petitioner subsequently assumed his duties as Volleyball Coach on deputation basis in the respondent-University. He at that time, admittedly, was drawing his salary in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 while working as Senior Volleyball Coach in his parent Organization. Nothing suggesting that he was given the option either to opt for the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 for the post of Coach in the University or to draw the salary in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500, the scale in which he was drawing his salary in his parent Organization at that time, has come on record. 7. Although, no order has been placed on record either by the petitioner or the respondent-University showing that on joining duties by him as Volleyball Coach on deputation basis, he was placed in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500, yet the reply filed to the writ petition on behalf of the respondent-University and the impugned order reveal that he was allowed to draw his salary in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500, found advantageous to him. The order Annexure A-5, that is, intra departmental correspondence reveals that the salary of the petitioner so fixed was ordered to be drawn against the vacant post of Deputy Students’ Welfare Officer, carrying higher pay scale, i.e. Rs.3700-5700 (UGC). The order Annexure A-5, that is, intra departmental correspondence reveals that the salary of the petitioner so fixed was ordered to be drawn against the vacant post of Deputy Students’ Welfare Officer, carrying higher pay scale, i.e. Rs.3700-5700 (UGC). The contents of this letter for the sake of convenience are reproduced hereunder: “With reference to Audit Requisition No.Dy.Co.(Audit)/PLP/1995-96/103-05 dated 19.8.1995 on the above subject, I am directed to inform you that matter was placed before the Vice-Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor ordered that salary of Sh. K.C. Rana, Volleyball Coach be drawn against the post of Dy. Students’ Welfare Officer lying vacant in Scheme HP-2 (Vety) in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700 (UGC).” 8. The letter is of 13.9.1995. The petitioner on the very next day, i.e., 14.9.1995 has given his option with regard to fixation of his salary in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700 from 24.4.1995, the day he joined the services of the respondent-University on deputation basis. The option given by him reads as follows : “OPTION In pursuance of letter No.5/147/87-H.P.K.V.(Estt.)1-11462-65 dt. Palampur, 17 Feb. 1995 read with letter No.4-154/95 H.P.K.V. (Estt.)1-29061-65 dt. Palampur, the 23 May, 1995 and No.4-154/95-H.P.K.V. (Estt.)/58669-72 dt. Palampur, the 13 Sept 1995, I, K.C. Rana, hereby opt the scale of Rs.3700-5700 attached to the post of Dy. Students Welfare Officer in HP Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya Palampur”. 9. It is seen that the petitioner having taken advantage of the order Annexure A-5 whereby he has been allowed to draw his salary against the vacant post of Deputy Students’ Welfare Officer carrying higher pay scale of Rs.3700-5700, opted for his placement in the scale of Rs.3700-5700 and thereby confused the whole issue because this is neither the scale meant for the post of Coach nor he was ever placed in this pay scale in his parent Organization. On the other hand, vide Annexure A-3 dated 17.2.1995 the respondent-University had agreed to borrow his services on deputation either in the pay scale prescribed for the post of Volleyball Coach in the respondent-University, i.e., Rs.2200-4000 or in his own pay scale, i.e., Rs.3000-4500. His option was never called for the grant of pay scale of Rs.3700-5700 and rather vide letter Annexure A-5 (supra) the respondent-University by way of internal arrangement ordered to draw his salary against the post of Deputy Students’ Welfare Officer which was lying vacant. His option was never called for the grant of pay scale of Rs.3700-5700 and rather vide letter Annexure A-5 (supra) the respondent-University by way of internal arrangement ordered to draw his salary against the post of Deputy Students’ Welfare Officer which was lying vacant. Although the prescribed pay scale of the post of Coach in the University is Rs.2200-4000, however, the petitioner on joining the services of the respondent-University on deputation basis, was allowed to draw his salary in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500, as a special case and personal to him. Since the post of Coach in the respondent-University is not in this pay scale, therefore, he was allowed to draw his salary against a post carrying higher pay scale for the reason that a person in the lower pay scale can be allowed to draw the salary against a post carrying higher pay scale. He was never given the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700 and when allowed to draw his salary in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500, he by taking undue advantage of the order Annexure A-5 and the option which was never called, started claiming his placement in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700 from the respondent-University. He even submitted the representations Annexures A-12, A-13, A-14, A-14-A, A-15, A-16, A-17 and A-18 to the writ petition. Had he been placed in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700, the respondent-University would have allowed him to draw the salary in the said pay scale. 10. If representation dated 30.6.1993 Annexure R-1 to the reply filed in the writ petition, made by the petitioner to the respondent-University qua his absorption on the post of Coach is seen, the subject cited reveals that he had sought his absorption on the post of Coach in the respondent-University in the pay scale of Rs.3000-5000. Therefore, it does not lie in his mouth to claim higher pay scale of Rs.3700-5700 by confusing the whole issue because vide Annexure A-5, the respondent-University by way of internal arrangement allowed his salary to be drawn against a post carrying higher pay scale. The order Annexure A-19 is self-speaking and reasoned one. The respondent-University has not committed any illegality or irregularity in permanently absorbing the service of the petitioner with effect from 1.5.1997 in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 pre-revised (revised Rs.10000-15200 with effect from 1.1.1996). The order Annexure A-19 is self-speaking and reasoned one. The respondent-University has not committed any illegality or irregularity in permanently absorbing the service of the petitioner with effect from 1.5.1997 in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 pre-revised (revised Rs.10000-15200 with effect from 1.1.1996). The petitioner knowing fully well that the respondent-University had borrowed his services on deputation on certain terms and conditions and in the matter of pay fixation the option either to opt for the scale of Rs.2200-4000 or the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 in which scale he, at that time, was drawing his salary in the parent Organization will only be available to him, cannot now turn around and claim higher pay scale. Not only this, but subsequently vide his representation Annexure R-1 to the reply filed in the writ petition by the respondent-University, he himself sought his absorption in the pay scale of Rs.3000-5000. He, however, was placed in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 at the relevant time when his services were borrowed by the respondent-University. Therefore, he was rightly placed in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 and subsequently absorbed in the respondent-University vide order dated 13.3.2001 (Annexure A-19 to the writ petition) in the same pay scale. As such, he cannot be said to be aggrieved by the impugned order, in any manner whatsoever. The services of the petitioner have rather been absorbed in the University on his own request. He, therefore, cannot be allowed to take benefit of the internal arrangement qua drawing his salary against a higher post which was lying vacant, particularly when such pay scale was never granted to him. 11. Learned Single Judge appears to have swayed with the recitals in the letter Annexure A-1 relating to the contribution of the petitioner in developing sports and cocurricular activities in the University during his posting under the SFS Field Station Scheme of Government of India. Such recitals in the letter appear to have been made in the context of placing his services on the establishment of the University as Volleyball Coach on deputation basis. His services ultimately were borrowed by the respondent-University, in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions and his pay also fixed accordingly. Therefore, the petitioner is neither entitled to the grant of pay scale of Rs.3700-5700 nor any consequential benefits. The impugned order Annexure A-19 to the writ petition being legally and factually sustainable calls for no interference. His services ultimately were borrowed by the respondent-University, in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions and his pay also fixed accordingly. Therefore, the petitioner is neither entitled to the grant of pay scale of Rs.3700-5700 nor any consequential benefits. The impugned order Annexure A-19 to the writ petition being legally and factually sustainable calls for no interference. 12. We, therefore, accept the present appeal and dismiss the writ petition, however, with no order as to costs. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand dismissed.