Dr. S.K. Jain vs Iit, Delhi & Anr on 16 May, 2011

Delhi High Court
Dr. S.K. Jain vs Iit, Delhi & Anr on 16 May, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of decision: 16th May, 2011.

+                           W.P.(C) 7778/2002

%        DR. S.K. JAIN                                       ..... Petitioner
                            Through:      Ms. Geeta Luthara, Sr. Adv. with
                                          Mr. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv.

                                   Versus

         IIT, DELHI & ANR.                                ..... Respondents
                        Through:          Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv. for R-1
                                          IIT.
                                          Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for
                                          R-2 UGC.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may                         No
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?               No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported              No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition impleading Indian Institute

of Technology (IIT), Delhi and Universities Grant Commission (UGC) as

W.P.(C)7778/2002 Page 1 of 8
respondents and claiming the following reliefs:

“(1) To admit and extend normal medical facilities to the
petitioner.

(2) To release the salary and grant of the petitioner
forthwith and not to delay and withhold payment of salaries
and provide timely necessary infrastructure support and other
facilities to the petitioner.

(3) Not to ban the entry of the petitioner to his office, work
place (laboratory) and residence as implied by the notice
Annex. D or stipulate any further similar action till the
petitioner achieves superannuation.”

2. The counsels have been heard.

3. The counsel for the respondent no.2 UGC has invited attention to the

order dated 23rd January, 2002 disposing of C.W. No.5090/2000 titled

UGC Research Scientists Association Vs. UGC. It is stated that the

petitioner herein was also a member of the UGC Research Scientists

Association and is thus covered by the order therein. The said fact has not

been controverted by the senior counsel for the petitioner.

4. The order dated 23rd January, 2002 disposing of C.W. No.5090/2000

is a consent order. The said order is as under:

W.P.(C)7778/2002 Page 2 of 8

“After some hearing a suggestion was made to work out
to an amicable settlement to end the controversy in question.
With the fair stand of both the counsel it has been possible to
arrive at such a settlement which is recorded in the following
terms.

The counsel for the respondent states the petitioners
who were initially appointed as Research Scientist under the
scheme of UGC will be continued on the same terms and
conditions as the department and centres in the Universities.
Thus there will be no issue of any review after every five
years as stated in para „1‟ of the scheme since these petitioners
have been working with the UGC over a long period of time.
It is also agreed that this will not in any way preclude the
respondents from taking disciplinary action, if a situation so
arises, in terms of the rules and regulations relating to
department and centres in Universities. It is further agreed
that if a particular candidate does not fulfil the requirement of
carrying on research in terms of this scheme, the same can be
ground for taking disciplinary action in terms of the rules and
regulations of the department and centres of the Universities
as applicable to the petitioners.

Learned counsel for respondents also fairly states that
even in the case of some petitioners whose services were
dispensed with during the pendency of this petition, the
petitioners shall be restored with all consequential benefits. In
case the respondents want to take any disciplinary action for
not carrying on research by such petitioners, the same shall be
done only in terms of the aforesaid procedure.

The arrears which shall be payable to the petitioners
arising from this order shall be paid within a period of six
weeks.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has some
apprehension on the issue of pay, parity and leave allowance.
I do not see any reason for this apprehension since
respondents have agreed to give same grades as the
W.P.(C)7778/2002 Page 3 of 8
department and centres of the Universities in terms of the
scheme and naturally in respect of these two issues the same
position would apply.

The writ petition is disposed in the aforesaid terms
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”

5. The counsel for the respondent no.2 UGC states that in accordance

with the said order, Circulars were issued by the respondent no.2 UGC

from time to time and the petitioner is entitled to the benefits/emoluments

in terms of the said Circulars and has been enjoying the same. It is rather

the contention of the counsel for the respondent no.2 UGC that in view of

the order aforesaid in C.W. No.5090/2000, the present writ petition is not

maintainable.

6. The counsel for the petitioner also admits that the petitioner has

been receiving the medical facilities and salary but states that the same are

being received under interim orders in this writ petition and the writ

petition in so far as reliefs (1) & (2) supra are concerned, be disposed of

confirming the said interim orders. As far as the third relief aforesaid is

concerned, it is admitted that the ban earlier imposed on the entry of the

petitioner to respondent no.1 IIT, Delhi has since been revoked and the

W.P.(C)7778/2002 Page 4 of 8
petitioner also continued in his residence in the IIT campus; the only

grievance stated to be surviving is of the work place given to the petitioner

which is stated to be under the staircase.

7. The counsel for the respondent no.1 IIT has contended that the

research of the petitioner has no relevance today to respondent no.1 IIT

and as such respondent no.1 IIT has requested to respondent no.2 UGC to

place the petitioner at another appropriate place. It is further contended

that delays occur in releasing the dues of the petitioner in accordance with

the Circulars aforesaid of respondent no.2 UGC because respondent no.2

UGC wants the respondent no.1 IIT to compute the amounts payable to the

petitioner; it is contended that the amounts ought to be computed by

respondent no.2 UGC itself and released to respondent no.1 IIT for onward

release to the petitioner. It is further stated that the work place as per

exigency has been provided. The counsel for the respondent no.1 IIT

further clarifies that the petitioner is not an employee of IIT, Delhi.

8. The senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has

been placed in respondent no.1 IIT, as per the tripartite agreement between

W.P.(C)7778/2002 Page 5 of 8
the petitioner, respondent no.1 IIT and the respondent no.2 UGC and the

petitioner is entitled to continue in the respondent no.1 IIT as long as he

desires.

9. The said aspects are left to be agitated before the respondent no.2

UGC in the event of any representation being made by the respondent no.1

IIT.

10. The senior counsel for the petitioner also seeks relief of restoration

of pension cum CPF account of the petitioner and in this regard invites

attention to para 13 of the reply of the respondent no.1 IIT to one of the

applications filed in this writ petition. The counsel for the respondent no.2

UGC has contended that the same is not subject matter of this writ petition

and is rather the subject matter of a contempt petition arising out of C.W.

No.5090/2000 and which contempt petition is still pending and listed next

on 1st June, 2011. The senior counsel for the petitioner has been unable to

show any reference thereto in the writ petition and contends that the same

is inherent in the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. However, in the

absence of any pleadings, no relief in that regard can be granted.

W.P.(C)7778/2002 Page 6 of 8

11. In the circumstances the writ petition is disposed of with the

following directions:

(i) Respondent no.1 IIT shall be entitled to represent to

respondent no.2 UGC to place the petitioner in an appropriate

Institute/Department and respondent no.2 UGC after hearing the

petitioner as well as the respondent no.1 IIT shall be entitled to take

a decision in this regard.

(ii) The petitioner shall be granted all the benefits as per the

Circulars of respondent no.2 UGC in pursuance to the order dated

23rd January, 2002 in C.W. No.5090/2000 aforesaid.

(iii) To obviate any delays in release of the dues of the petitioner,

it is directed that the Registrar (Establishment) of the respondent

no.1 IIT shall latest by 15 th day of May of each year, forward to the

Bureau Head Selection and Award Bureau of respondent no.2 UGC,

the anticipatory expenditure qua the petitioner for the following year

along with Utilization Certificate of the previous year, to enable the

W.P.(C)7778/2002 Page 7 of 8
respondent no.2 UGC to release the funds to the respondent no.1 IIT

for onward release/disbursement by the respondent no.1 IIT to the

petitioner by 15th July of each year.

12. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No

order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
MAY 16, 2011
bs

W.P.(C)7778/2002 Page 8 of 8

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *