Disposed¶23

Heigrujam Manglem Singh v. Jawahar Lal Nehru University and Anr.

Delhi HC18 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/2291/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pay parity/upgradation case: Assistant Archivist in JNU seeks Pay Level-7 (Grade Pay ₹4600) w.e.f. 01.01.2016 at par with National Archives of India counterparts, per 7th CPC paragraph 11.11.17; JNU proposal to UGC (communication dated 12.01.2024) pending; W.P.(C) 2291/2026, Delhi High Court, Sanjeev Narula J, 18.02.2026, disposed of with direction to UGC to pass reasoned speaking order within six weeks; merits left open.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the University Grants Commission to decide on the recommendations forwarded by JNU vide communication dated 12th January, 2024, also considering the grounds urged by the petitioner, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks and communicating it to the petitioner; no opinion expressed on merits, rights left open. ¶23

Heigrujam Manglem Singh Vs Jawahar Lal Nehru University and Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether Assistant Archivists in JNU, claiming to be identically situated with their counterparts in the National Archives of India, are entitled to Pay Level-7 (Grade Pay ₹4600) with effect from 01.01.2016 pursuant to the 7th CPC recommendations (paragraph 11.11.17), on whose proposal pending with the UGC a decision was awaited.

¶21

Court's answer

At the first instance, the University Grants Commission ought to take a considered decision on the proposal forwarded by JNU, which is stated to be pending consideration.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the University Grants Commission to take a decision on the recommendations forwarded by JNU vide communication dated 12th January, 2024.

¶23

Key takeaways

In taking that decision, the UGC shall also consider the grounds urged by the Petitioner in the present writ petition.ratio¶23
The UGC shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks and duly communicate it to the Petitioner.ratio¶23
The Court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim; all rights and contentions of the parties are left open, and if aggrieved by the UGC's decision the Petitioner may avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) 2291/2026 (Delhi High Court, Sanjeev Narula J, order dated 18.02.2026): The petitioner, an Assistant Archivist in Jawaharlal Nehru University (Grade Pay ₹4200), claimed parity with identically situated Assistant Archivists in the National Archives of India, who were granted Pay Level-7 pursuant to the 7th Central Pay Commission's recommendation in paragraph 11.11.17 (upgradation to Grade Pay ₹4600 / Pay Level-7 of the Pay Matrix w.e.f. 01.01.2016). JNU's Committee had opined in the petitioner's favour and a proposal was forwarded to the University Grants Commission vide communication dated 12th January, 2024, which remained pending. The Court disposed of the petition, directing the UGC to take a considered decision on that proposal at the first instance, also considering the grounds urged in the writ petition, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks, duly communicated to the petitioner. The Court expressly did not express any opinion on the merits; all rights and contentions were left open, with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies if aggrieved.

¶1

$~65

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2291/2026

¶4

HEIGRUJAM MANGLEM SINGH .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Shanker Raju and Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY AND ANR

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Through: Mr. Parmanand Gaur Standing Counsel for R-2/UGC with Mr. Vibhav Mishra & Ms. Megha Gaur, Advocates.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶11

O R D E R % 18.02.2026

¶12

CM APPL. 11057/2026 ( for seeking exemption from filing copies)

¶13

Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

The Applicant shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.

¶15

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

¶16

W.P.(C) 2291/2026

¶17

The Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Archivist in Jawaharlal Nehru University in the Grade Pay of ₹4200. It is contended that the 7^th Central Pay Commission, in paragraph 11.11.17 of its recommendations, recommended upgradation of the post of Assistant Archivist in the National

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 20/02/2026 at 13:09:57

¶20

Archives corresponding to Grade Pay ₹4600 and placement in Pay Level-7 of the Pay Matrix with effect from 01^st January, 2016. The National Archives of India thereafter implemented the said recommendations and granted Pay Level-7 to its Assistant Archivists.

¶21

The Petitioner claims to be identically situated with his counterparts serving as Assistant Archivists in the National Archives. Upon his representations seeking parity, JNU constituted a Committee to examine the issue, which is stated to have opined in favour of the Petitioner and recommended that the proposal be forwarded to the University Grants Commission for its consideration/approval as to whether Assistant Archivists in JNU may also be granted Pay Level-7 with effect from 01^st January, 2016. Reliance is placed on a communication dated 12^th January, 2024 issued by JNU to the UGC. It is submitted that the said proposal remains pending and no decision has been communicated till date.

¶22

In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that, at the first instance, the University Grants Commission ought to take a considered decision on the proposal forwarded by JNU, which is stated to be pending consideration.

¶23

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the University Grants Commission to take a decision on the recommendations forwarded by JNU vide communication dated 12^th January, 2024. While doing so, the UGC shall also consider the grounds urged by the Petitioner in the present writ petition. A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed within a period of six weeks from today and be duly communicated to the Petitioner.

¶24

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 20/02/2026 at 13:09:57

¶27

merits of the claim and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open. In the event the Petitioner remains aggrieved by the decision so taken, he shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

¶28

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶29

FEBRUARY 18, 2026/ hc

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 20/02/2026 at 13:09:57

Heigrujam Manglem Singh v. Jawahar Lal Nehru University and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heigrujam Manglem Singh v. Jawahar Lal Nehru University and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajni Devi Vs Google India and Others

M/S Green One Drive Private Limited Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Lalit Narayan Mithila University Vs Delhi International Arbitration Centre & Ors.

Mgr Anna Dravid Munnetra Kazhagam Vs Election Commission of India

Bipin Kumar Vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr.

Rajiv Pandey Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

M/Sverandah Moonshine through Its Director Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Dinesh Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Ashok Sagar Bhagat Vs Union of India & Ors.

Yashpal Singh Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.

Sh. Girish Vaidya Vs the Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge (Headquarters)

Ram Pariksheet Kumar & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mr Ram Kumar Goel Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Gurbachan Singh Chhatwal Vs Punjab & Sind Bank