Arshiya Zia and Anr. v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Anr.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners against the vacation order dated 01.03.2023 issued by the respondent Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. By the said notice dated 01.03.2023, the respondent University has directed the petitioner herein to vacate the staff quarter bearing No. 78, Type II, that had been initially allotted to the husband of Petitioner No. 1, who was father of petitioner no. 2, during his service with the respondent University.

2. The petitioners in the present writ petition are two in number being the wife and son of Late Ziauddin Aziz, who was working with the respondent University as Class III employee.

3. Late Ziauddin Aziz died in April, 2021. Subsequently, vacation orders were received by the petitioners for vacation of the flat in question. Against the same, writ petition being W.P (C) NO. 5330/2022 was filed by the petitioner no. 1 herein. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by order dated 30.03.2022 wherein this court recorded the undertaking on behalf of the petitioner herein to handover the vacant possession of the premises within two months. The said order further recorded that the petitioner shall be liable to pay penal rent as per the rules prescribed.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner no. 2, son of Late Ziauddin Aziz made a representation to the respondent university for appointment on compassionate grounds. Thus, a second writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 8532/2022 came to be filed on behalf of the petitioner no. 2. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 27.05.2022, wherein this court directed that the petitioner and his family members will not be evicted from the premises in question till one week after his representation for compassionate appointment has been decided.

5. Since it was the case on behalf of the petitioners that the said representation of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was not being decided by the respondent, contempt case being CONT. CAS (C) No. 920/2022 was filed by the petitioner no. 2 against the respondent.

6. This court is informed that the said contempt petition has since been decided by order dated 14.03.2023 by taking note of the fact that the order dated 27.05.2022 was prior in time to the policy of the respondent dated 07.07.2022 for compassionate appointment. Thus, on the said premise, it was held that there cannot be any contempt of the order dated 27.05.2022, when the policy of the respondent University for compassionate grounds was formulated only subsequently on 07.07.2022. Thus, in view thereof the said contempt petition came to be disposed off.

7. Ms. Anita Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent University has drawn the attention of the court to order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the respondent University.

8. By way of the said order dated 01.08.2022, the respondent University disposed of the representation of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, by directing the petitioner to apply properly on the given format along with the requisite documents.

9. Thus, pursuant to the aforesaid letter dated 01.08.2022, the petitioner herein applied for compassionate appointment in November, 2022 pursuant to the policy of the University for compassionate appointment as formulated in July, 2022.

10. Thus, this court notes that earlier representation of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was disposed of with direction to the petitioner to apply afresh properly along with requisite documents. This court also notes that subsequently, as per the directions of the respondent University as given by way of letter dated 01.08.2022, the petitioner herein made a representation for compassionate appointment on proper format along with the requisite documents in the month of November, 2022. This Court also notes that the said application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is still pending with the respondent.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent University has categorically submitted that the representation of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is pending along with the application of 10 others with the respondent University. She submits that the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment shall be considered as per policy.

12. Though pendency of the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has no connection with the prayer of the petitioners for allowing the petitioners to stay in the accommodation as provided by the respondent university, however, considering the fact that this court had earlier by order dated 27.05.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 8532/2022 had allowed the petitioners to stay in the said accommodation during the pendency of the earlier representation for compassionate appointment, it is deemed expedient that some protection be extended to the petitioners in the present case also.

13. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the petitioners be allowed to stay in the premises for a period of two months from today, after which the petitioners shall vacate the premises occupied by them.

14. It is clarified that this court has not made any observation on the merits of the case with respect to charging of penal rent by the respondent university, qua which the respondent is at liberty to proceed as per law.

15. It is further clarified that in case the petitioners do not vacate the premises within two months time from today, as granted by this court, the respondent University would be at liberty to take appropriate steps for getting the said premises vacated.