Allowed

Dhruw Kant Jha v. Netaji Subhas University of Technology & Ors.

Delhi HC12 Dec 2024W.P.(C)/4076/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition quashing an order that conditioned pensionary benefits on future regularisation. Holding that a previous office order regularising the petitioner merged with a judicial order disposing of an earlier petition, the Court directed the University to treat the petitioner as a regular employee entitled to benefits.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order dated 07.12.2021 and directions to treat the petitioner as a regular employee in terms of the order dated 12.05.2014.

Dhruw Kant Jha Vs Netaji Subhas University of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4076/2022 & CM APPL. 12116/2022

¶4

DHRUW KANT JHA …..Petitioner

¶5

Through: Dr. Amit George, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

NETAJI SUBHAS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

¶8

& ORS. .....Respondents

¶9

Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms.Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr.Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates for Respondent No.1/NSUT.

¶10

Ms. Latika Choudhary, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

¶12

O R D E R % 12.12.2024

¶13

This writ petition has been preferred on behalf the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India laying a challenge to the order dated 07.12.2021 passed by Respondent No.1 with consequential directions to release the leave encashment and other pensionary benefits including as also permit the Petitioner to avail CGHS facilities as granted to other employees of Respondent No.1, with arrears and interest.

¶14

Dr. Amit George, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) 665/2014 with several other Petitioners seeking relief of regularisation as also grant of minimum pay scale and other

¶15

W.P.(C) 4076/2022 Page 1 of 4

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/12/2024 at 12:15:50

¶17

allowances at par with regular employees working with the Government of NCT of Delhi.

¶18

Petitioner has been working with Respondent No.1/Netaji Subhash University of Technology for the last over 33 years, initially on ad-hoc basis as Janitor albeit appointed through the regular process of selection pursuant to recommendation of Selection Committee held on 30.11.1988. Respondent No.1 invited application for recruitment to the post of Library Assistant in December 2001 against which the Petitioner applied as a departmental candidate through proper channel. On being selected an offer of appointment was issued to the Petitioner on 07.03.2002 as per the terms of which retirement benefits were assured.

¶19

It is stated that in the earlier round of litigation, when W.P.(C) 665/2014 was pending and was listed on 10.09.2014, Respondent No.1 issued an order dated 12.05.2014 regularising services of 41 employees including the Petitioner. Basis this order, the writ petition was disposed of with respect to the relief of regularisation and as for grant of minimum pay scale and other allowances at par with Delhi Government employees, liberty was granted to the Petitioners to file fresh proceedings. Respondent No.1, however, did not regularise the Petitioner and issued the impugned order dated 07.12.2021 stating that all his pending dues on retirement will be released once his case for regularisation is finalised.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that having once passed an order on 12.05.2014 regularising the Petitioner on the basis of which his writ petition was disposed of recording satisfaction of the grievance pertaining to regularisation, it is not open to Respondent No.1 to take a stand that Petitioner is not entitled to retiral benefits pending his regularisation. It is

¶21

W.P.(C) 4076/2022 Page 2 of 4

¶22

¶23

also pointed out that office order dated 12.05.2014 was issued with the approval of the Chairman of the Board of Governor of Respondent No.1 and no contrary action can be taken by any authority in the Institute.

¶24

Ms. Ahlawat, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent, however, takes a stand that the office order dated 12.05.2014 was issued without the approval of the Board of Governors and had no legal effect and which is why the pensionary benefits have not been released to the Petitioner on the basis of his status as a regular employee.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in my view, there is merit in the contention of the Petitioner that vide office order dated 12.05.2014 services of 41 employees in the Institute were regularised and basis this order the writ petition filed by the Petitioner being W.P.(C) 665/2014 was disposed of recording accord and satisfaction qua the relief of regularisation. The office order has merged with the judicial order dated 10.09.2014 and Respondent No.1 is bound to implement the same in letter and spirit. It is not open to Respondent No.1 to go behind this order and open the issue of regularisation once again.

¶26

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, quashing order dated 07.12.2021 with a direction to Respondent No.1 to treat the Petitioner as a regular employee in terms of the order dated 12.05.2014, as indicated therein.

¶27

At this stage, Court is apprised that a dispute in relation to pay fixation is pending in a batch of petitions before this Court in which Petitioner is also a party. Needless to state that the pensionary benefits shall be released on the basis of undisputed salary and allowances and subject to the outcome of the pending writ petition, making it clear that pendency of

¶28

W.P.(C) 4076/2022 Page 3 of 4

¶29

¶30

the said writ petitions will not come in the way of the Petitioner to receive the amounts on the pre-revised salary.

¶31

Writ petition stands disposed of along with the pending application.

¶32

JYOTI SINGH, J

¶33

DECEMBER 12, 2024

¶34

B.S. Rohella

¶35

W.P.(C) 4076/2022 Page 4 of 4

¶36

Dhruw Kant Jha v. Netaji Subhas University of Technology & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhruw Kant Jha v. Netaji Subhas University of Technology & 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

Muskan Vs Central Board of Secondary Education (through Its Secretary) & Ors.

Muhimuddin Muhi Vs Bses Yamuna Power Ltd.

Raj Pal Vs Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Central District and Ors.

Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. Vs Vijay Bhatia and Ors.

Rajiv Enterprises (through Its Sole Proprietor Rajiv Daga) Vs Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax

State of Haryana Vs B M Institute of Engineering & Technology & Anr.

Anil Bhasin Vs Gaurav Gogna and Others

Gourav Vs Union of India & Ors.

Archana Mishra Vs National Education Society for Tribal Students & Anr.

Sh. Jaipal Singh Deceased through His L.Rs. & Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Priyanka Chaudhary & Ors. Vs National Education Society for Tribal Students & Anr.

Satyendra Kumar Vs Union of India and Anr.

Veda Vyasa Dav Public School Vs Sh. Devender Kumar Arya and Anr.

Purnima Chauhan Vs Delhi University & Ors.