Full Text
I
,l
I
I
20 and2t
*€ IN TI{E HIGH COTJRT OF DELHI AT NDW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5t9612013 and C.M. No.1167712013 (stay)
KULWANT SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Sherawat, Advocate.
Respondents
Through
+ W.P.(C) 5197120t3 and C.M. Nos.l1678/2013 (stay) and 1t689/2013
(exemption)
HARMEET SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Sherawat, Advocate.
Through
% 2r.08.2013
ORDER
1. The basic issue raised in these writ petitions is entitlement of the petitioners to have alternative employments/business/part time jobs although petitioners have fulI time employment with the W.P.(C) Nos.5l96/2013 & s197/2013 page I of 2 2013:DHC:7238 lrespondent No.l-institute, and which is an educational institute. Whether or not any rule exists either of the respondent No.l-institute qua its employees or there is any other such rule of AICTE so that a full time employee cannot have any other employment/business/part time job will only be known one way or the other when articles of charges are issued against the petitioners. If in the articles of charges there is no mention of a specific rule which prohibits alternative employment or part time employment, then, at that stage, petitioners would be entitled to approach this Court.
2. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid observations. A copy of this order will be served by the petitioners upon the respondent No.l-institute within a period of one week from today.
3. Counsel for the petitioners states that petitioners are not being paid suspension allowances. If that be so, petitioners would be paid suspension allowances by the respondent No.1 ih accordance with the rules.
4. Dasti to counsel for the parties.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J AUGUST 2t,2013 Ne