JUDGMENT : D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. 1. Challenge has been made to the inaction of the opposite parties for non-payment of four advance increments on the revised pay structure and the financial arrear benefits thereby to the petitioner. 2. The unfolded story leading to filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner being a highly qualified professor, working as Senior Scientist in Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar (UP) (in short “the IVRI”), applied for the post of Professor in Veterinary Medicine Department under Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhuabneswar (hereinafter called as “the OUAT”) on certain terms and conditions. One of the terms and conditions was to give him appointment on payment of four advance increments. On being agreed by the OUAT, the petitioner joined as Professor in Veterinary Medicine under OUAT. After joining of the petitioner, the OUAT got his pay fixed with four advance increments but it is alleged inter alia that when the revision of scale of pay was held with effect from 01.01.2006, i.e., much before the date of joining of the petitioner as Professor, the petitioner was not paid four advance increments under the revised scale of pay. 3. Be it stated that the petitioner is a highly qualified person having completed his Ph.D in IVRI and fellowship at United States of America and thereafter on 21.07.2002, he was promoted to the post of Senior Scientist at IVRI, which is most prestigious institution in India. The petitioner was appointed as Professor in Veterinary Medicine under the OUAT in pursuance of the advertisement dated 30.07.2005 under its service rules. Although the professor of the OUAT standing on the same footing like that of the petitioner are receiving their salary in terms of the revised scale of pay, the petitioner was not allowed to avail four advance increments on the revised scale of pay which is clear discrimination meted out by the opposite parties to the petitioner violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In spite of approach by the petitioner, the opposite parties did not allow four advance increments under revised scale of pay whimsically and without any basis. So, the petitioner was compelled to file this writ petition asking for payment of four advance increments as per the terms and conditions on the revised scale of pay and to pay all the arrear financial benefits accrued to the petitioner. 4. So, the petitioner was compelled to file this writ petition asking for payment of four advance increments as per the terms and conditions on the revised scale of pay and to pay all the arrear financial benefits accrued to the petitioner. 4. SUBMISSIONS Mr.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being a highly qualified person was Senior Scientist professor at IVRI and under the terms and conditions being offered by the OUAT, he accepted the assignment. One of the terms and conditions was to allow him four advance increments at the initial stage on the scale of pay of a professor. According to him, the office order dated 27.03.2006 was also issued stating that the petitioner was allowed four advance increments in the scale of pay of Rs.16,400-Rs.22,400/-, the scale of pay of a professor with usual allowance as admissible. 5. Mr.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after the revision of scale of pay under UGC was implemented with effect from 01.01.2006, the petitioner was not paid the four advance increments under the revised scale of pay for which he made representation to the OUAT, which was referred to the State Government seeking clarification as to whether four advance increments which were allowed to the petitioner on his direct recruitment as professor in the pre-revised scale of pay Rs.16,400/-to Rs.22,400/-would be again allowed to him over and above the revised pay of Rs.43,000/-with effect from 14.08.2006, the date when the petitioner got appointed in OUAT. 6. It is further submitted that the Government of Orissa in Agriculture Department sought for certain clarification from the OUAT and after submission of the clarification, the opposite party no.3 replied that in absence of any provisions allowing four advance increments in the Government notification, the petitioner cannot be extended with such benefits in the revised scale of pay with effect from 01.01.2006 and whether the OUAT can take decision of an employee in violation of Government notification while the funds in shape of grants made by Government towards salary of the University employees. But, the OUAT again referred the matter to the opposite party no.3 with the opinion that four advance increments on the date of appointment of the petitioner as professor on 18.08.2006 should be allowed over and above the revised scale of pay to the petitioner and asked the Government to reconsider the request. 7. But, the OUAT again referred the matter to the opposite party no.3 with the opinion that four advance increments on the date of appointment of the petitioner as professor on 18.08.2006 should be allowed over and above the revised scale of pay to the petitioner and asked the Government to reconsider the request. 7. Mr.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the opposite party no.3 has unnecessarily dragged the feet by not allowing four advance increments although the OUAT has agreed to pay the same and made terms and conditions accordingly by considering the qualification of the petitioner. Had the Government turned down the offer from the beginning then the petitioner would not have come from IVRI to join under OUAT. Apart from this, the pre-condition was to pay four advance increments on the scale of pay of a professor but when the scale of pay has been revised with effect from 01.01.2006 and the petitioner joined on 14.08.2006, he should be paid the revised scale of pay along with four advance increments on the revised scale but not on pre-revised scale. As the revised scale of pay is applicable to all the professors as per the calculation sheet, the prayer of the petitioner should be allowed by giving four advance increments on the revised scale of pay without discrimination being meted out to him. 8. Per contra, Mr.Pattjoshi, learned counsel for the OUAT, relying on the counter affidavit of opposite party no.1, submitted that there was an advertisement for the appointment of Professor and during selection process, the petitioner had asked for five to six increments, which was placed before the Board of Management of OUAT which authorized the Vice-Chancellor to take a decision. The Vice-Chancellor considered the same and allowed four advance increments in order to compensate the financial loss of the petitioner because he was serving as Senior Scientist at IVRI by then. 9. Mr.Pattjoshi, learned counsel for the OUAT further submitted that in accordance with Foreign Service Rules, the petitioner was given other benefits as applicable under the said Rule and as per the terms and conditions, the petitioner was paid four advance increments on the pre-revised scale of pay as applicable to a professor with effect from 14.08.2006 when he joined. 9. Mr.Pattjoshi, learned counsel for the OUAT further submitted that in accordance with Foreign Service Rules, the petitioner was given other benefits as applicable under the said Rule and as per the terms and conditions, the petitioner was paid four advance increments on the pre-revised scale of pay as applicable to a professor with effect from 14.08.2006 when he joined. But, later Government notification for the revised scale of pay under UGC was issued on 08.03.2010 where the scale of pay of professors was revised with effect from 01.01.2006. Since the revised scale of pay came, the OUAT sought for clarification from the State Government about applicability of four advance increments over and above the revised scale of pay to the petitioner. But the State Government replied that in absence of any provision allowing four advance increments in the Government notification dated 08.03.2010, the petitioner is not entitled to four advance increments on the revised scale of pay with effect from 01.01.2006 for which the claim of the petitioner is out and out an illegal claim and the same should not be allowed. 10. Learned Additional Standing Counsel, relying upon the affidavit of opposite party no.3, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable. He admitted about the posting of the petitioner as a Professor under the OUAT and there was a request from the side of the petitioner to allow him five to six advance increments to compensate the financial loss by the petitioner in the event he gets appointed and the OUAT, without any reference to the State Government approved for payment four advance increments in favour of the petitioner. As there is no any advertisement giving benefit for four advance increments, any decision taken by the Vice-Chancellor was against the law and the State Government cannot extend the financial support to the University in this regard. 11. Learned Additional Standing Counsel further submitted that when the revised scale of pay was introduced under the UGC scale of pay in 2010, the said rule does not contain anything about payment of advance increments and accordingly, the State Government has replied accordingly to the query made by the OUAT. So, the learned Additional Standing Counsel contended that in absence of any specific rule, the State Government is not liable to pay any such four advance increments under the revised scale of pay to the petitioner. So, the learned Additional Standing Counsel contended that in absence of any specific rule, the State Government is not liable to pay any such four advance increments under the revised scale of pay to the petitioner. Wherever there is any financial matter, the Finance Department should be referred for their concurrence. When the matter was referred to the Finance Department, payment of four advance increment in accordance with the UGC revised scale of pay was denied to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner should not be accepted. 12. POINT FOR DETERMINATION The main point for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to four advance increments in the post of Professor under UGC revised scale of pay? 13. DISCUSSION It is admitted fact that the petitioner was working as Senior Scientist in IVRI. It is also admitted fact that in pursuance of the advertisement made by the OUAT for the post of Professor, Veterinary Medicine, the petitioner applied, appeared in the interview and got selected for the said post. It is also not in dispute that on the request of the petitioner, the OUAT offered four advance increments to the petitioner to meet his financial loss. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was paid four advance increments under pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.16,400/-to Rs.22,400/-. It is also admitted fact that on 08.03.2010, the scale of pay was revised by the State Government under UGC scale of pay with effect from 01.01.2006. 14. Annexure-A/1 shows that on 30.07.2005, there was an advertisement made by the OUAT to fill up one post of Professor in Veterinary Medicine. There is nothing mentioned in the advertisement to award any additional increment to the candidate selected for the post. Annexure-B/1 shows that Standing Selection Committee for the appointment of Professor, has recommended to allow four advance increments in case of appointment of petitioner as Professor and that proposal was considered by Board of Management and the Board of Management which authorized the Vice-Chancellor to take a decision in the matter. Annexure-C/1 shows that the Vice-Chancellor being authorized by the Board of Management of OUAT allowed four advance increments at the initial scale of pay of a Professor to the petitioner vide letter dated 20.06.2007. 15. The question arises whether the Vice-Chancellor has exceeded his power by granting such benefit to the petitioner. Annexure-C/1 shows that the Vice-Chancellor being authorized by the Board of Management of OUAT allowed four advance increments at the initial scale of pay of a Professor to the petitioner vide letter dated 20.06.2007. 15. The question arises whether the Vice-Chancellor has exceeded his power by granting such benefit to the petitioner. The parent department of the petitioner, i.e, IVRI has awarded him Ph.D with subject Antioxidants in Amelioration of Lead Toxicity : Experimental Studies. No doubt, the petitioner became a Senior Scientist on 21.07.2002. He has got also fellowship from Australia and USA as per the documents annexed to the writ petition. The Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology Act, 1965 (hereinafter called as “the Act, 1965”) has got the following relevant provisions to understand the subject in this matter. For better appreciation, Sections-4, 5(q), 10(2), 10(9), 17(12) and 17(13) of the Act, 1965 are placed in the following manner: “4. The objects of the university, among others, shall be to make provision for the education mainly of the rural people of the State of Orissa in agriculture and to promote research, field and extension programmes in agriculture and agricultural production. 5.(q) to do all such acts and things, as may be necessary for the furtherance of the objects of the University. 10.(2) Subject to the provisions of Section 24, it shall be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to ensure the faithful observance of the provisions of this Act and the Statutes and also to carry out the directives issued by the Board from time to time and for the said purpose he may exercise all such powers and take all such actions as may be necessary in that behalf 10.(9) The Vice-Chancellor shall discharge such other duties and perform such other functions as may be assigned to him by the Board. 17.(12) Issue such directives to the Vice-Chancellor relating to the administration of the University as it deems proper and necessary; and 17.(13). Generally give effect to the provisions of this Act.” The aforesaid provisions make it clear that the avowed object of the Act, 1965 to promote the agriculture and make research on the subject. Not only this but also the extension of such other programme in agriculturists and agricultural production. 16. Generally give effect to the provisions of this Act.” The aforesaid provisions make it clear that the avowed object of the Act, 1965 to promote the agriculture and make research on the subject. Not only this but also the extension of such other programme in agriculturists and agricultural production. 16. The word “agriculture” is also defined in Section-2(2) of the Act, 1965 and the same is placed in the following manner: 2.(2) “agriculture” includes the basic and applied sciences dealing with soil and water management, production of crop, fish or livestock, veterinary science, home science, forestry and such other ancillary subjects as are necessary for the proper study and understanding of agricultural production and its development.” So, “agriculture” not only includes the crop but also includes livestock, veterinary science, home science, forestry and such other ancillary subjects as are necessary for the proper study and understanding of agricultural production and its development. The power and function of the OUAT is also clear to show that besides other activities, it shall do all such acts and things, as may be necessary for the furtherance of the objects of the University. To do so, there is a Board of Management of the OUAT who actually look after all the affairs including the day-to-day maintenance of the teaching and non-teaching employees. Under section-17, as depicted above, the Board can authorize the Vice-Chancellor to do such other act as deemed necessary for the administration of the OUAT and for implementing the provisions of the Act, 1965. The Vice-Chancellor has thus got the power to all such other things as directed by the Board. 17. It has been discussed in the above paragraphs that after the advertisement made, the Selection Committee recommended for payment of four advance increments for the post of Professor and such recommendation must be for the purpose of promoting the avowed object of the OUAT. The Board of Management authorized the Vice-Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor also faithfully observed the same by granting four advance increments to the petitioner basing on the recommendation of the Standing Committee as well as the Board of Management. When the petitioner has got such qualifications which are really meant for promoting the object of the Act, 1965, the OUAT allowed four annual advance increments to the petitioner on the basic pay of a Professor. When the petitioner has got such qualifications which are really meant for promoting the object of the Act, 1965, the OUAT allowed four annual advance increments to the petitioner on the basic pay of a Professor. Nowhere, it has been provided in the Act, 1965 that any such proposal of Vice-Chancellor has to be veted by the State Government. 18. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State Government took the plea that OUAT has appointed the petitioner by granting four advance increments without approval of the Government. Approval of the Government is necessary because the OUAT used to take grant from the Government to pay salary of the employees of the University. In this regard, provision is there in the Act itself. Sections-27, 28 and 31 of the Act, 1965 is depicted below for reference: “27. The University shall have a generally fund called the University Fund to which shall be credited:- (1) its income from fees, endowments and grants, if any; (2) contributions or grants made by the State or Central Government and other authorities for general or specific purposes; and (3) other contributions or grants. 28.(1) The University shall have a fund called the Foundation Fund. (2) The Foundation Fund shall consist of:- (a) The sum of not less than ten lakhs of rupees which shall be given to it by the Government in the course of the five years after the coming into force of this act; (b) any contribution to this fund which may be made by the Government, any local authority or other public body or others; and (c) any contributions to this fund which may be made by the University Xxxx xx 31.(1) The Government shall sanction in favour the University an annual grant of not less than twenty-five lakhs of rupees.” The aforesaid provisions make it clear that not only OUAT gets grant from the State Government but also gets contribution from different sources including fees, endowments etc. So, the contention of the learned Additional Standing Counsel on the topic that permission of the Government is necessary because of the grant made to the OUAT is of without substance inasmuch as the grant of the State Government is one of the contribution but not the sole. So, the contention of the learned Additional Standing Counsel on the topic that permission of the Government is necessary because of the grant made to the OUAT is of without substance inasmuch as the grant of the State Government is one of the contribution but not the sole. Apart from this, the OUAT is an autonomous body and it has got statute where there is no provision for making the reference to the State Government to discharge the duty by the University. If at all any contribution is made by the State Government, the same may be utilized by the OUAT in accordance with the statutory provisions available therein. As the statute does not ask the Board of Management or the Vice-Chancellor seeking Government’s approval for payment of the advance increments which was made for the benefit of the institution, the contention of the learned Additional Standing counsel becomes indefensible. 19. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State also does not substantiate under what provision of law the OUAT is required to ask the State Government in every aspect to accord its approval. But at the same time, the State Government is not powerless to seek the information from the OUAT as to how the grant was spent. If the grant was spent for the avowed object of the OUAT as conferred under the Act, 1965, the Government cannot question the decision of the OUAT. In the instant case, it appears from the pleadings of both parties that the OUAT allowed four advance increments to the petitioner to compensate his financial loss as he was getting higher salary while working as Senior Scientist in IVRI. Unless the same incentive like advance increments is given, he would not have come to serve for the OUAT. So, the offer of sanctioning four advance increments is otherwise for the benefit of the institution than to compensate the financial loss of the petitioner. In the instant case, the decision of the OUAT having offered four advance increments to the petitioner on the basic scale of the University for the post of a Professor is undoubtedly legal and proper. 20. The revision of UGC scale of pay for teachers of OUAT issued by Government of Orissa in Agriculture Department vide notification dated 8.3.2010 (Annexure-I/3) stipulates that the said instruction came into force with effect from 01.01.2006. 20. The revision of UGC scale of pay for teachers of OUAT issued by Government of Orissa in Agriculture Department vide notification dated 8.3.2010 (Annexure-I/3) stipulates that the said instruction came into force with effect from 01.01.2006. Sub-clause (v) of clause-3 states about the definition of existing scale and the same is placed in the following manner: “3.(v) “Existing Scale” means in relation to a OUAT teacher/Scientists/equivalent cadre, the scale which would have been applicable to the post held by him (or as the case may be, personal scale applicable to him or her) as on the 1st day of January, 2006, whether a substantive temporary or officiating capacity, but for the revised scales.” The aforesaid provision is clear enough to show that the scale of pay as was availed by the regular teacher/scientist and equivalent cadre as on 01.01.2006 got revived. Clause-9 of said notification speaks as follows: “9. Rate of increment in the revised pay structure:-The rate of increment in the revised pay structure shall be 3% of the sum of the pay in the pay band and academic grade pay applicable, which will be rounded off to the next multiple of 10. The amount of increment will be added to the existing pay in the pay band.” The above provision also makes it clear that 3% of the revised pay structure is taken as increment per year and the same would be added to existing pay in the pay band. 21. From the affidavit filed by the opposite party no.3, it is clear that OUAT has allowed four advance increments at pre-revised scale. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner claims that when pre-revised scale was revised with effect from 01.01.2006 and made available to the petitioner, four advance increments should have been revised at the same time so as to pay the arrear dues. It is also admitted by the opposite parties that the pay of the petitioner has already been revised under the aforesaid notification and his pay has become Rs.43,000/-per month. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner had joined OUAT on 14.08.2006. There is no restriction under the aforesaid notification to deny the claim as made by the petitioner. It is also admitted by the opposite parties that the pay of the petitioner has already been revised under the aforesaid notification and his pay has become Rs.43,000/-per month. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner had joined OUAT on 14.08.2006. There is no restriction under the aforesaid notification to deny the claim as made by the petitioner. When there is clear admitted fact that the petitioner was offered four advance increments and the same as was observed earlier to be legal and proper, four advance increments at the time of revision of scale of pay should have been revised in accordance with Clause-9 of the notification dated 8.3.2010, as stated above. Such advance increments is only to be added to the pay brand as one time measure after revision of scale of pay. 22. It is contended by the learned State Counsel that the provisions for four advance increments being not provided under the notification dated 8.3.2010, the State Government is unable to accord the proposal of the OUAT. It must be remembered that the notification is with regard to the applicability of UGC scale of pay, fixation of pay, payment of increment and other ancillary provision and it does not relate to the condition of service including payment of advance increments or like other incentives for catering the need of the educational institution. Apart from this, the absence of a provision in the notification cannot be taken as a denial of benefit, which is not against the public policy. It is reiterated that the power of OUAT in promoting the research and education in the institution is for implementing the object of the Act, 1968, the plea of the learned State Counsel that the notification denies the entitlement is untenable. 23. In terms of the above discussion, the Court is of the view that four advance increments to the petitioner being not against the public policy and the OUAT being guided by the Act, 1968, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that four advance increments on revised scale of pay should be added to the pay of the petitioner fixed under notification of the Agriculture Department dated 08.03.2010 has gained force. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to four advance increments for the post of Professor under UGC scale of pay. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 24. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to four advance increments for the post of Professor under UGC scale of pay. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 24. CONCLUSION In the writ petition, it has been prayed to allow four advance increments to the petitioner on the revised pay structure and to award arrear financial benefits on such payment of advance increments. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, it has been already observed that the petitioner is entitled to four advance increments on the revised scale of pay. The Court is of the view that the opposite parties-OUAT having admitted to have paid the revised scale at Rs.43,000/-as Professor to the petitioner which is also the basic revised pay of other professors, the basic pay of the petitioner should be fixed by adding four advance increments @ 3% of the basic pay fixed under revised scale of pay and then proceed for payment of the same as usual under the above notification dated 8.3.2010 and the Court direct so. It is further directed that after refixation of the pay of the present petitioner under revised scale of pay with four advance increments, the differential amount as accrued to the petitioner, be paid by the opposite parties. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of three months from today. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.