Dr. Shikha Kapur v. Jamia Millia Islamia University

Delhi High Court · 16 May 2018 · 2018:DHC:3256
Sunil Gaur
W.P.(C) 5264/2018
2018:DHC:3256
administrative other Procedural

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to make a concise representation and the University to respond with a speaking order regarding non-implementation of an office order and salary adjustments.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 5264/2018
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: May 16, 2018
W.P.(C) 5264/2018 & CM APPL. Nos. 20406-07/2018
DR. SHIKHA KAPUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. A Sumathi and Mr. R Ramesh, Advocates
VERSUS
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY …..Respondent
Through: Dr. Amit George and Mr. Rishabh Dheer, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
JUDGMENT

1. By way of this writ petition, implementation of office order of 12th July, 2017 (Annexure P-33) is sought by petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Representation (Annexure P-34) was made to respondent-University on 25th August, 2017, but to no avail. It is pointed out by petitioner’s counsel that instead of implementing the office order (Annexure P-33), respondent- University vide impugned order of 26/27th March, 2018 (Annexure P-35) has adjusted the study leave salary due to petitioner as well as the benefit accruing to petitioner under the VIIth Central Pay Commission towards the impugned recovery. 2018:DHC:3256 W.P.(C) 5264/2018

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Representation against impugned order (Annexure P-35) has been made, but its copy is not readily available.

4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition and the applications with permission to petitioner to make a concise Representation to respondent-University to seek implementation of its office order (Annexure P-33) and against the adjustment of salary etc. made vide Annexure P-35. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a concise Representation would be made within two weeks to respondent-University. If it is so done, then a speaking response to the said Representation be made by Respondent-University within a period of six weeks and the fate of the said Representation be conveyed to petitioner within two weeks thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedy as available in law, if need be.

5. With the aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties.

JUDGE MAY 16, 2018 p