Quashed

Binod Kumar Singh v. Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan and Anr.

Delhi HC4 Apr 2018W.P.(C)/3190/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged premature termination of service and disciplinary removal based on alleged gaps in educational marks. Court quashed disciplinary charges as unjustified, recharacterized termination as simplicitor (without stigma), and directed claim settlement of dues within two weeks with a six-week response window.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's removal treated as simplicitor termination of Service Agreement; petitioner entitled to claim remitted dues and to institute claim for own service benefits within two weeks.

Binod Kumar Singh Vs Rashtriya Sanskrit… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Order: April 04, 2018

¶3

+ W.P.(C) 3190/2018 & CM No.12625/2018

¶4

BINOD KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Shibashish Misra and Ms.Bhabna Das, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT SANSTHAN AND ANR.

¶7

..... Respondents Through: Mr.Gyan Prakash, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr.Vivekanand Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶9

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶10

Vide impugned order of 29^th June, 2017 (Annexure P-2) , petitioner's Service Agreement of 11^th November, 2013 has been terminated and petitioner was removed from the post of Registrar of respondent- Sansthan , which had been challenged by way of an appeal. Vide order of 4^th January, 2018, petitioner's statutory appeal stands dismissed. After petitioner had worked on the post of Registrar of respondent- Sansthan for more than two years, departmental proceedings were initiated against him on account of some complaint received

¶11

Page 1 of 3

¶12

W.P.(C) 3190/2018

¶13

regarding essential educational qualification of petitioner. The foremost charge on which petitioner was departmentally proceeded was of his obtaining 54.66% marks in M.A. (Public Administration) whereas the eligibility was 55% in the said Discipline.

¶14

After having heard learned counsel for petitioner at length, this Court is of the opinion that initiation of disciplinary proceedings against petitioner on the issue of petitioner lacking essential educational qualification was not justified. Although respondent- Sansthan was well within its rights to prematurely terminate petitioner's Service Agreement of 11^th November, 2013, but the grounds on which it has been prematurely terminated cannot be justified.

¶15

In the considered opinion of this Court, the premature termination of petitioner's Service Agreement of 11^th November, 2013 deserves to be maintained, but his removal from service on the charges is directed to be treated as a simplicitor termination of petitioner's Service Agreement of 11^th November, 2013. Meaning thereby, impugned order shall be read as simplicitor termination of Service Agreement of 11^th November, 2013 and it shall not carry any stigma.

¶16

During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court that Pension, PF, Gratuity and other dues were transferred by petitioner’s previous employer to respondent- Sansthan , which, according to learned counsel for respondent, has been remitted back to the previous employer i.e. National University of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi . In such a situation, petitioner would be well within his right to claim the amounts so remitted back by respondent-

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

W.P.(C) 3190/2018

¶19

Sansthan to petitioner's previous employer. So far as petitioner's claim for gratuity, leave encashment and provident fund for the service rendered by petitioner with respondent- Sansthan is concerned, petitioner would be at liberty to seek it from respondent- Sansthan by filing an application within a period of two weeks. If such an application is received by respondent- Sansthan , then it be considered in terms of the applicable Rules and Regulations. However, it is clarified that if respondent- Sansthan for any reason chooses not to accept petitioner's application so filed, then the reasons for non-acceptance be spelt out and conveyed to petitioner within six weeks thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be.

¶20

With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are disposed of.

¶21

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶22

APRIL 04, 2018 s

¶23

Page 3 of 3

¶24

W.P.(C) 3190/2018

Binod Kumar Singh v. Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Kumar Singh v. Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan and 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

Nilofer Rizvi Vs Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors.

Satya Pal Batra Vs D.D.A.

Sh. Shyam Vs Motilal Nehru College (Evening) and Anr.

Krishan Gopal Bakshi Vs Delhi Development Authority

Sh. Dhanpal Vs Land and Building Department and Anr.

Delhi Jal Board Vs Vimal Kumar

Dev Narayan Vs the Mgmt.of M/S Auto Precision

Rajender Kumar Sharma Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Nilofer Rizvi Vs Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors.

Sh. Shyam Vs Motilal Nehru College (Evening) and Anr.

NTPC Executives Federation of India (Nefi) through Its Secretary General Shri v K Sharma Vs NTPC Ltd.

Pramod Popli Vs Saumya Gupta

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Vs Union of India and Anr.

Shaswati Sinha Vs Directorate of Education and Anr.