Disposed

Professor M. Obaid Siddiqui v. Vice Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia & Anr.

Delhi HC3 Aug 2016W.P.(C)/6733/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an order regarding subsistence allowance for a suspended professor, accepting the proposal to treat it as a representation for appropriate action.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of without granting specific relief, directing the respondents to consider it as a representation and pass an order.

Professor M. Obaid Siddiqui Vs Vice… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~48

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6733/2016

¶3

PROFESSOR M. OBAID SIDDIQUI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.M.Atyab Siddiqui, Mr.Adnan Siddiqui, Ms.Tibah Siddiqui, Mr.Obaid Siddiqui, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

VICE CHANCELLOR, JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ANR

¶6

..... Respondents Through: Dr.Amit George, Ms.Zeba Khair, Advs.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

¶9

O R D E R % 03.08.2016

¶10

This is a petition filed by the petitioner with the following

¶11

reliefs:-

¶12

“(a) Quashing the Order issued by the Vice Chancellor (Respondent No. 1) incorporated in Copy letter bearing No. F. No. 4-137/RO/ (Estt.)/2016 dated 17.5.2016;

¶13

(b) Direct the Competent Authority to suitably enhance the subsistence (suspension) allowances in accordance with the rules and the mandate of law; ”

¶14

The impugned order dated 17^th May, 2016 reads as under:

¶15

“Consequent upon extension of suspension of Mr.M. Obaid Siddiqui, Professor (under suspension), AJK MCRC, beyond three months, vide office order dated 29-4-2016, the

¶16

subsistence allowance payable to him has been reviewed by the Vice Chancellor as per provisions contained in the CCS (CCA) Rules. The Vice Chancellor has ordered that „considering the serious nature of the charges imputed against the Charged Officer and the continuing regular enquiry and his frequent visit to the AJK MCRC premises as reported, it is appropriate not to vary the quantum of subsistence allowance being paid to him and it remains unchanged'.

¶17

Therefore, the subsistence payable to Mr. M. Obaid Siddiqui, beyond three months will continue to remain unchanged i.e. an amount equal to his half pay with admissible allowance(s) under PR 53. The payment of subsistence allowance is subject to submission of non-employment certificate on prescribed form (copy enclosed) every month by Mr. M. Obaid Siddiqui to the Accounts Officer (Salaries), JMI as required under PR 53 (2).”

¶18

Dr. Amit George, learned counsel appearing for the respondents

¶19

on advance notice states that the impugned order dated 17^th May,

¶20

2016 was passed in view of the circumstances existed on that date. According to him in view of the order passed by this Court in WP(C) no.5974/2016, wherein this Court had allowed the petitioner to visit the campus for medical treatment/operating the bank account only, the circumstances have changed and the respondents intends to review the issue of subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner.

¶21

If that be so, the respondents shall consider the writ petition as a representation and pass an order in accordance with the rules on or before 31^st August, 2016.

¶22

The petition is disposed of.

¶23

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶24

AUGUST 03, 2016 RN

Professor M. Obaid Siddiqui v. Vice Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Professor M. Obaid Siddiqui v. Vice Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia & Anr.

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

Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology & Science Vs University Grants Commission

Mahender Singh Vs the Commissioner of East MCD & Ors.

Defence Colony Welfare Association Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Sunder Singh Vs Inspector General of Central Industrial Security Force

Ramakant Kumar Vs Government of NCT of Delhi

Margra Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs UOI & Ors.

Margra Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs UOI & Ors.

Parmod Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Dr. Rajiv Kumar Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr.

Rajiva Ranjan Vs Dena Bank

Karuna Aggarwal Vs Delhi State Legal Services Authority and Anr.

Harish Chander Vs Delhi Transco Limited & Anr.

Dmrc (Delhi Metro Rail Corporation) Vs Central Advisory Contract Labour Board

Vishal Video & Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Vs Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.