Dismissed

Dr.a.L.Pancholi v. Raj.Vidyapeeth Deemed Uni. and Anr.

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2024CW/1213/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by legal heirs of a deceased faculty member claiming additional salary for serving as Controller of Examination. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the appointment complied with the university memorandum and no legal provision or irregularity entitled the petitioner to extra compensation or warrant judicial interference.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dr.a.L.Pancholi Vs Raj.Vidyapeeth Deemed… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:303]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1213/2003

¶4

Dr.A.L.Pancholi, aged 54 years, Son of Late Shri K.L. Pancholi, R/o Nirala Marg, Shakti Nagar, Udaipur. Now deceased (expired on 18.4.2007) Through his Legal Heirs -

¶5

i. Smt. Angesh Pancholi, wife of Late Shri Ambalal Pancholi, Aged 57 years, R/o Shakti Nagar, Nirala Hotel, Near Punjab & Sindh Bank, Udaipur.

¶6

ii. Lokesh Pancholi son of Late “Shri Amba lal Pancholi, aged 38 years R/o Shakti nagar, Nirala Hotel, Near, Punjab & Sindh Bank, Udaipur.

¶7

iii. Smt. Gaytri Pancholi wife of Shri Laxmi NarayanjiJuniwal, aged 40 years, D/o Late Shri Amba lal Pancholi, R/o Keshav Nagar, Udaipur – At present R/o Shakti Nagar, Nirala, Hotel, Near Punjab & Sindh Bank, Udaipur.

¶8

iv. Smt. Sunita wife of Shri Radhey Shyamji Dashora, D/o late Shri Ambalal Pancholi, aged 36 years, R/o Gadiya Devra Sabji Mandi, Gachiwara, Udaipur.

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed University), Pratapnagar, Udaipur – Through its Registrar.

¶12

The Vice-Chancellor, Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed University), Pratap Nagar, Udaipur.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.S. Chundawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mathur Mr. Sachin Mathur

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶16

Order (Oral)

¶17

03/01/2024

¶18

The petition herein is being pursued by the legal representatives of the Late Dr. A.L. Pancholi, who, at the relevant

[2024:RJ-JD:303]

[CW-1213/2003]

(2 of 4)

time, when he filed the petition, was aggrieved by an order dated 19.03.2003 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of respondent No. 1- University, whereby he was posted as Controller of Examination as a stopgap measure.

¶23

The grievance was also that while on one hand, he was appointed as Controller of Examination by the University, exempting him from academic duties, on the other hand, he was not promoted to the position of Professor while discharging his duties on the said post, as per the impugned order. It transpires that during the pendency of the writ proceedings, his claim to seek promotion to the position of Professor has already been satisfied.

¶24

Through an interim order dated 26.03.2003, the petitioner was granted a stay on his appointment as Controller of Examination. Subsequently, upon an application filed by the respondent-University, the same was vacated. Consequently, the petitioner continued to work as Controller of Examination during the subsistence of interim protection and thus he claimed that he ought to have been paid certain additional compensatory allowances for being in the said post.

¶25

The petitioner asserted that he was merely paid a conveyance allowance, and he has not been compensated for the duties discharged as Controller of Examination.

¶26

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions of the learned counsels.

¶27

I am of the view that the respondent-University is since governed by its memorandum of association, and the appointment of the petitioner was made in accordance therewith. None of the

[2024:RJ-JD:303]

[CW-1213/2003]

(3 of 4)

terms of his appointment or the memorandum of association envisage that, in case an academician, whether Additional Associate or Professor, is made Controller of Examination of the university in addition to his academic duties, he has to be paid an extra salary.

¶32

During the hearing, no satisfactory response has been provided when asked which provision of the memorandum of association or the terms of appointment of the petitioner as Controller of Examination have been violated so as to seek the indulgence of this Court to issue a writ of mandamus.

¶33

On the contrary, attention has been drawn to clause 4.3 of the memorandum of association which prescribes that officers of Vidhya Peeth University-respondent No.1 and the Controller of Examination are as much officers of the University as Professors and the Vice-Chancellor of the University. Additionally, the ViceChancellor of the University is fully empowered under Clause 15(b) of the memorandum of association to appoint any suitable officer of the University to any position in exercise of the general power of supervision and control over the affairs of the University. 9. Furthermore, the memorandum of association, which governs the rules of the University, also envisages that if any person in the service of the University is aggrieved by any action of the Vice-Chancellor, they shall have the right to appeal against such action or file an appeal/representation within 30 days before Ritvika, a grievance forum created by the University. 10. The petitioner, on one hand, acquiesced to his continuation as Controller of Examination by not filing any representation or appeal and, on the other hand, has turned around to seek

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:303]

[CW-1213/2003]

additional wages for which no provision of law has been shown to entitle him to seek such relief.

¶38

Nevertheless, since no material irregularity in law of any kind has been pointed out, I am unable to persuade myself to issue a writ of mandamus directing the University to pay any additional compensation for the duties discharged by the petitioner as Controller of Examination, as claimed by him.

¶39

As an upshot, no grounds for interference are made out.

¶40

Dismissed accordingly.

¶41

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶42

(ARUN MONGA),J

¶43

4-KshamaD/-

¶44

Whether fit for reporting: Yes/No

Dr.a.L.Pancholi v. Raj.Vidyapeeth Deemed Uni. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.a.L.Pancholi v. Raj.Vidyapeeth Deemed Uni. 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

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Raj. Ayurved University, Jodhpur

Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Kumar Bhatt Vs State of Rajasthan

Nand Ram Vs State and Anr.

Mangi Lal Lohar Vs Maharana Pratap Uni.of Agri.and Tech.and Anr.

Satya Narain Vs State and Ors.