Remanded

University of Delhi v. Sharda Sehgal and Ors.

Delhi HC17 Feb 2016W.P.(C)/11680/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an impugned order directing the University of Delhi to pay gratuity. Without adjudicating merits, the Court remanded the matter to the Controlling Authority for a fresh decision on the admission of facts within three weeks, after disbursing the admitted amount, to be concluded within eight weeks. The petition stands disposed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Controlling Authority for fresh decision on merits after admission of admitted dues.

University of Delhi Vs Sharda Sehgal and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 11680/2015

¶4

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. G.K. Pathak, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

SHARDA SEHGAL AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sudesh Kumar Goyal, Adv. for R-1 with R-1 in person Mr. Vijay Joshi & Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, Advocates for R-2 & 3/UOI

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA O R D E R % 17.02.2016

¶9

This writ petition has been moved by the University of Delhi impugning the orders passed by the Controlling Authority on 25.08.2014 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,87,806/- towards balance gratuity along with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum to the first respondent. The review application moved by the petitioner also came to be dismissed on 25.09.2015.

¶10

It is, inter alia, the case of the petitioner that the learned Controlling Authority has erred in quantifying the aforesaid amount by taking into account extraneous facts whilst ignoring certain relevant facts. It is also the case of the petitioner/University of Delhi that inadvertently, certain erroneous facts were placed before the learned Controlling Authority by the University. In this context, it is also pointed out that the figure indicating the actual amounts disbursed by the University to the first respondent that were W.P.(C) 11680/2015 Page 1 of 2

¶11

taken into account by the Controlling Authority were erroneous. Furthermore, under the applicable rules and regulations, the respondent was not entitled to gratuity for the leave period.

¶12

At the same time, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioners would have no objection to disburse any amounts which the petitioner itself has found as due and payable to the first respondent.

¶13

Issue notice.

¶14

Counsel for all the respondents accept notice.

¶15

At the outset, and without going into the merits of the matter, counsel for all the parties are agreed that the matter be remanded to the learned Controlling Authority/respondent No. 2 herein for a fresh decision on merits whilst also taking into account the particulars mentioned in Annexure P-3 of the writ petition. Of course, all parties concerned would be given an opportunity by the Controlling Authority to put forward their case before any final decision is taken in the matter.

¶16

The petitioner shall approach the Controlling Authority for this purpose within three weeks from today, after disbursing the admitted amount to the first respondent, and the matter will be duly considered and disposed off on merits by that Authority within another eight weeks after giving opportunity to the parties.

¶17

The impugned order is set aside on the aforesaid terms.

¶18

The petition along with all interim applications stand disposed off.

¶19

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J .

¶20

FEBRUARY 17, 2016 rd

¶21

Page 2 of 2

¶22

W.P.(C) 11680/2015

University of Delhi v. Sharda Sehgal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

University of Delhi v. Sharda Sehgal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. V.K. Bahuguna Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rail Mazdoor Union Vs the Chairman, Railway Board & Ors.

M/S. Emaar Properties Pjsc Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

M/S Emaar Mgf Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Development Authority

Richi Rich Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Trade and Taxes, New Delhi & Ors.

Kross Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Vat & Ors.

Divya Verma Vs the General Manager, Bank of Baroda & Anr.

Rajesh Kumar Jha Vs Central Railside Warehouse Company Ltd.

Sita Ram Vs Delhi Development Authority and Anr.

Deepak Sapra Vs Punjab National Bank

M/S E&M Specialty Co. Inc. Vs M/S Interdril Asia Ltd.

Banasthali Vidyapith Vs Union of India & Ors.

Divya Verma Vs the General Manager, Bank of Baroda & Anr.

Vinod Mandal & Anr. Vs Cosmic Creations Pvt. Ltd.