JUDGMENT : B.R. SARANGI, J. The petitioner was appointed on 05.12.1978 as Primary Investigator under Farm Management Data Unit (FMDU) Scheme of the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology (OUAT). On closure of FMDU Scheme, the petitioner was retrenched from service. Thereafter, vide order dated 17.04.1984, he was appointed as Field Investigator in the University and allowed to draw the scale of pay attached to the post of Primary Investigator, instead of the scale of pay admissible to the post of Field Investigator. The nature of work assigned to Primary Investigator is totally different from that of Field Investigator. The pay scale of Primary Investigator was Rs.300-470/- whereas the pay scale of Field Investigator was 320-550/-. Subsequently, the pay scale of Field Investigator was revised to Rs.935-1530/- under Orissa Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1985 (for short “O.R.S.P. Rules, 1985”) and thereafter it was revised to Rs.1530-2200/- under O.R.S.P. Rules, 1989. Under the O.R.S.P. Rules, 1996 the pay scale of Field Investigator was revised to Rs.4500-7000/- and again in the year 2006 it was revised to Rs.5200-20,200/- with Grade Pay of Rs.2800/-. As the petitioner was allowed to draw the pay scale admissible to the post of Primary Investigator, which was less than that of Field Investigator, though he was appointed as Field Investigator, he made representations which are still pending for consideration. When the petitioner made enquiry under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, it was informed by the Public Information Officer (PIO) vide letter dated 18.10.2011 that his representation might not have been processed due to want of service book and other relevant records. Since the petitioner claims for the scale of pay admissible to the post of Field Investigator at par with his counterparts in the State Government, the same having not been granted nor his representations considered, he has been constrained to file this writ petition. 2. Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged before this Court that though the petitioner was initially appointed as Primary Investigator under FMDU Scheme on 05.12.1978 and on closure of the said Scheme he was retrenched from service, he was thereafter appointed as Field Investigator in the University vide order dated 17.04.1984. 2. Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged before this Court that though the petitioner was initially appointed as Primary Investigator under FMDU Scheme on 05.12.1978 and on closure of the said Scheme he was retrenched from service, he was thereafter appointed as Field Investigator in the University vide order dated 17.04.1984. Even though the nature of work discharged by the petitioner in the post of Field Investigator was totally different from that of Primary Investigator, the petitioner was allowed to draw the scale of pay admissible to the post of Primary Investigator. He further contended that since counterparts of the petitioner working as Field Investigators under the State Government were getting higher scale of pay, due to such disparity, the petitioner made representations, but the same have not been considered till date. As such, he is losing financially every month and finding no other way out, he has approached this Court claiming the scale of pay admissible to the post of Field Investigator. 3. Mr. A. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for opposite parties no.1 and 2 admitted the factual position, as discussed above. But, however, contended that appointment of the petitioner was considered by the University on priority basis, as he was a retrenched employee of defunct FMDU project. The petitioner accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment letter including the scale of pay which was fixed therein, and he was also allowed the benefit of Time Bound Advancement Scale and Assured Career Progression. As such, OUAT is an autonomous body and its employees are governed by its own Statute and Rules. On the basis of the terms of the appointment, scale of pay admissible to the petitioner has been revised in the year 1981, 1985, 1988, 1989 and 2006 as Rs.300-470/-, 840-1240/-, 1075-1660/-, 3200-4900/- and Rs.5,200-20,200/- + Grade Pay Rs.2200/- respectively. It is admitted that pursuant to the representations filed by the petitioner on 14.02.2007 and 20.8.2012 relating to revision of scale of pay of Field Investigator, the opposite party-University moved the Government of Odisha Agriculture Department to consider the matter. In spite of steps being taken by the opposite party-University, no action has been taken at the level of Government and the matter is still pending for consideration. 4. Mr. In spite of steps being taken by the opposite party-University, no action has been taken at the level of Government and the matter is still pending for consideration. 4. Mr. B. Senapati, learned Additional Government Advocate strenuously urged that OUAT is an autonomous body and its employees are governed by its own Statute and Rules and the appointment of the petitioner as Field Investigator with the scale of pay of Rs.300-470/- was determined by OUAT, and the State Government had nothing to do with the same. However, by referring to paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.3, he further urged that the petitioner was never appointed as Field Investigator on the concurrence of the Government. 5. This Court heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Since pleadings between the parties have been exchanged, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 6. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner was appointed as Field Investigator in the University vide order dated 17.04.1984 at the scale of pay of Rs.300-470/, but the scale of pay admissible to the post of Field Investigator under the State Government, at the relevant point of time, was Rs.320-550/-. If the petitioner was discharging the same nature of work as that of his counterparts under the State Government, his scale of pay ought to have been fixed at Rs.320-550/-. The petitioner being an employee of OUAT, his service conditions are regulated by Rules and Regulations applicable to the Staff of OUAT. Clause-4 (iii) of The Statute of Orissa Agriculture and Technology, 1966 states as follows: “4. (i) xxxxxxx (ii) xxxxxxx (iii) Ministerial staff and other employees: The scales of pay of the ministerial staff and other employees relating to posts of various categories in the University Office and all offices sub-ordinate to it, shall be the same as those of the staff of the Secretariat relating to similar post. The minimum qualifications at the entry point shall be equalized with that of the Secretariat”. 7. The aforementioned provision clearly indicates that the scale of pay of the ministerial staff and other employees relating to posts of various categories in the University Office and all offices sub-ordinate to it, shall be the same as those of the staff of the Secretariat relating to similar post. 7. The aforementioned provision clearly indicates that the scale of pay of the ministerial staff and other employees relating to posts of various categories in the University Office and all offices sub-ordinate to it, shall be the same as those of the staff of the Secretariat relating to similar post. This being so, as the Field Investigators in the Secretariat were getting pre-revised scale of pay Rs.320-550/-, the fixation of scale of pay at Rs.300-470/-, so far as Field Investigator of OUAT is concerned, cannot be considered to be justified. Consequentially, the revision of scale of pay, as admissible to the counterpart Secretariat employees, should have also been extended to the petitioner. In this context, even though the petitioner made grievance by filing representations on 14.02.2007 and 28.04.2014, which were duly forwarded and recommended by the OUAT to the Government for consideration, the same have not yet been considered on flimsy ground, as has been indicated in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.3, which is quoted hereunder: “That in reply to the averments made in paras-4, 5 and 6 of the writ petition it is humbly submitted that Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology is an Autonomous Body governed by its own statute and rules. Hence, the appointment of the petitioner as Field Investigator with the scale of pay of Rs.300-470 was determined by his authority. It is seen from the Notification No.18848/UAT dt. 02.08.1984 of OUAT that consequent to decision of the Government regarding the need to maintain research activities in the Regional Research Stations and also to meet the requirements of the training under T & V programme and in view of the fact that State Government have agreed to provide necessary funds though on a reduced scale for the purpose under plan, it has been decided to fill up initially various posts including the post of Field Investigator pending approval of the Board of Management through Finance Committee. Since the concerned letter nos. of the Govt. showing the above mentioned decisions of the Government have not been mentioned in the aforesaid notifications of the OUAT, the Registrar, OUAT (opp. party No.1) was requested vide Agriculture Department letter No.3406/Ag. Dt.02.03.2015 and 4454/Ag. Dt. 18.03.2015 to furnish the Resolution copy of the decision of the Govt. as stated in the said Notification of OUAT. But opp. showing the above mentioned decisions of the Government have not been mentioned in the aforesaid notifications of the OUAT, the Registrar, OUAT (opp. party No.1) was requested vide Agriculture Department letter No.3406/Ag. Dt.02.03.2015 and 4454/Ag. Dt. 18.03.2015 to furnish the Resolution copy of the decision of the Govt. as stated in the said Notification of OUAT. But opp. party no.1 could not furnish it and vide letter dtd. 23.3.2015 took the plea that it is not traceable. Hence, it is difficult on the part of O.P. No.3 to admit that the applicant has been appointed as Field Investigator on the concurrence of Government”. 8. Apart from the above, the petitioner along with his rejoinder affidavit has filed the relevant part of “Revised Budget Estimates 2011-12 & Budget Estimates 2012-13” of the University wherein at Page 145 under the heading “Agril. & Allied (Transfer from Plan to Non-Plan)” at Sl.No.1, which deals with the department of Director, Planning and Evaluation under heading ‘Grade-C’, it has been clearly indicated that as against five original sanctioned posts of Field Investigator, five men are in position at the scale of pay of Rs.3,200-4,900/-. Once the sanction of posts of Field Investigator, men in position and the scale of pay admissible to the said posts are admitted by the State Government, in a casual manner counter affidavit has been filed by a responsible officer of the State, which runs contrary to the records available. This Court does not appreciate lethargic and careless act of the authority, which has, without verifying the records and without considering the grievance made by the petitioner, made the statement as quoted above. Even if the claim for revised scale of pay made by the petitioner was recommended by the University in proper perspective, the authority kept the same pending for years together, which clearly indicates non-application of mind by the authority concerned. 9. The rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner also indicates that every year budget estimate is made against the sanctioned post and the same is being considered by the State Government and amount has been paid against such post. 9. The rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner also indicates that every year budget estimate is made against the sanctioned post and the same is being considered by the State Government and amount has been paid against such post. In any case, since the petitioner claims the benefit of fixation of scale of pay at par with his counterpart secretariat employees in terms of Clause-4(iii) of the Statute and to that effect he has made grievance before the authority and the same has been duly recommended to the State Government for early decision, and as such the petitioner has been pursuing the matter, on the basis of materials available, since 2007 and in the meantime 10 years have elapsed, the petitioner is suffering from mental trauma for the inaction of the authority concerned. The person holding higher post should not act in a manner as if he is monarch of the entire system, rather he, being a public servant and engaged for the benefit of public, must know his limitation and must discharge his duty in consonance with the provisions contained in the Statute itself. Non-discharge of function within the statutory limits clearly amounts to callousness of the authority and as such, when the petitioner is ventilating his grievances before this Court by filing the present writ petition, the manner in which the State Government files counter affidavit clearly indicates that the officer, who is in the rank of Deputy Secretary, has no semblance of responsibility in due discharge of his duties in conformity with the provisions of law. 10. The deliberations made above leave no room for doubt, that the petitioner’s grievance raised, by way of representations dated 14.02.2007 and 28.04.2012, was duly forwarded and recommended for taking a decision on the part of the Administrative Department with regard to revision of scale of pay of Field Investigator as per the provisions contained in Clause-4(iii) of the Statute, is still pending. 11. In Gurpal Tuli and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1901 the apex Court held that to be entitled to draw a particular pay scale the employee must fulfill the eligibility condition whether by way of qualification or otherwise. 12. 11. In Gurpal Tuli and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1901 the apex Court held that to be entitled to draw a particular pay scale the employee must fulfill the eligibility condition whether by way of qualification or otherwise. 12. Considering Clause-4(iii) of the Statute read with the principles laid down by the apex Court, as discussed above, and applying the same to the present context, it is to be considered and examined whether the petitioner is discharging his duty as Field Investigator at par with his counterpart secretariat employees of the State Government, and since the petitioner satisfies this minimum condition, he is entitled to the scale of pay of Rs.320-550/- as pre-revised scale and consequential revision of pay as due and admissible to the post itself. Therefore, this Court disposes of this writ petition directing opposite party no.3 to take a decision as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.