Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: May 28, 2018
V N PILLAI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amit Pawan, Mr. Anand Nandan and Mr. Rohit Rajeshi, Advocates
Through: Mr. Harsh S Kaushik, Advocate for Ms. Poonam Kalia, Advocate
For R-1
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioners are retired Class-II employees of respondent-Sahitya Akademi, who are aggrieved by the impugned order of 1st January, 2018 (Annexure P-3) vide which recovery from pension has been initiated against petitioner by the respondent-Akademi.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners’ have made Representations (Annexures P-7 & P-14) to second respondent, but there is no response.
3. Despite service of advance notice, there is no representation on behalf of second respondent.
4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition and applications with permission to petitioners 2018:DHC:3540 W.P.(C) 5856/2018 to make a fresh and concise Representation to the second respondent within a week. If any such Representation is received, then it be considered by giving a speaking response thereto within a period of four weeks and the fate of the Representation be conveyed to petitioners within a week thereafter, so that petitioners may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be. Till it is so done, the impugned recoveries be not given effect to.
5. Second respondent be apprised of this order forthwith, to ensure its compliance.
6. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be given dasti to petitioners’ counsel.
JUDGE MAY 28, 2018 p