Full Text
W.P.(C)1259/2014
DRRAGHUBIRVEDALANKAR Petitioner
Through: Mr.Prateek Yadav,Advocate with Mr.Sanjeev Sahay,Advocate.
Through: Mr.Mohinder J.S.Rupal,Advocate for University ofDelhi.
Mr.Ravinder Aggarwal,Advocate for respondentNo.2.
NIRMAL KUMAR Petitioner
JUDGMENT
1 Through: Mr.Prateek Dahiya,Advocate.
VERSUS
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS Respondents Through: Mr.Mohinder J.S. Rupal,Advocate Ms.Beenashaw N.Soni,Advocate forrespondentNo.2. Mr.Ravinder Aggarwal,Advocate for respondentNo.3. + W.P.(C)4721/2014 MAN MOHAN KAUR Petitioner Through: Mr.Shankar Raju,Advocate.
VERSUS
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI& ORS Respondents W.P.(C)No.l2S9/20i4& conn,matters page1of[6] 2016:DHC:8638 + W.P.(C)7766/2014 KAMLESH MALHOTRA & ANR. Petitioners Through: Mr.TanujKhurana,Advocate with Mr,P.Chaitanyashil,Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: Respondents Mr.Mohinder TS.Rupal,Advocate Ms.Beenashaw N.Soni,Advocate with Mr.Aakash Yadav,Advocate for respondentNo.5. + W.P.(C)558/2015 NIRMAL AHLUWALIA Through: Petitioner Mr.Malaya Kumar Chand,Advocate with Mr.Shivam Pandey,Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS Through: Respondents Mr.Mohinder J.S.Rupal,Advocate Mr.R.P.Sharma,Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Mehra,Advocate for respondentNo.4. + W.P.(C)8068/2015 KATYAYANIPRASAD BENJWAL & ANR Petitioners Through: Mr.Tanuj Khurana,Advocate with Mr.P.Chaitanyashil,Advocate.
VERSUS
W.P.(C)No.1259/2014& conn,matters page2of[6] '7 r> UNION OFINDIA & ORS Respondents + W.P.(C)290/2016 and C.M.No.l194/2016(directions)
GOPAL JI Petitioner Through: None, versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ANR ~ Respondents Mr.AmitBansal,Advocate with Ms. Seema Dolo,Advocate with Ms. Surbhi Mehta,Advocate for + W.P.(C)292/2016 and C.M.No.1200/2016(for directions)
RAMESH GRAND GUPTA Petitioner Through: None.
VERSUS
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ANR Respondents., Through: Mr.Mohinder J.S.Rupal,Advocate Mr.AmitBansal,Advocate with Ms. Seema Dolo,Advocate with Ms. Surbhi Mehta,Advocate for + W.P.(C)337/2016 and C.M.No.1381/2016(for ad interim stay) A.P.SURI Petitioner Through: None.
VERSUS
W.P.(C)No.1259/2014& conn,matters page[3],of[6] UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ANR Respondents Mr.Anurag Mathur,Advocate for + W.P.(C)3687/2016 NARENDER KUMAR Petitioner Through: Ms.Rekha Rustagi,Advocate.
VERSUS
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI& ORS. Respondents Mr.AnilPanwar,Advocate with Mr. Ram Kumar Jha,Advocate for respondentNo.4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VALMIKIJ.MEHTA ORDER % 10.11.2016
1. Learned counsel appearing for Delhi University states that petitioners are entitled to benefit of the General Provident Fund (GPF) scheme instead ofthe Contributory Provident Fund(GPF)scheme provided petitioners factually satisfy the requirements ofthe GPF scheme. Learned counsel for the Delhi University admits that the legal issue is covered in favour ofthe petitioners by the Division Benchjudgmentofthis Court W.P.(C)No.1259/2014& conn,matters page4of[6] /( r passed in a bunch ofcases with lead case beingSmt.ShashiKiran and Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia and Ors.in LPANo.410/2014 decided on 24.8.2016.
2. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the petitioners to make representations as to how the petitioners satisfy the eligibility criteria and the conditions for being covered by the GPF scheme, and which representations be made to the University of Delhi/employer within a period offour weeks jfrom today. The University ofDelhi within a period ofsix weeks thereafter will consider the representations and pass a speaking order giving the benefits to the petitioners ofthe GPF scheme on the petitioners being held entitled to the GPF scheme on complying with its requirements. The petitioners who will be entitled to the GPF benefits, as per the University ofDelhi, the said benefits be released to the petitioners within a period offour weeks ofthe passing ofthe order. If according to the University ofDelhi,a particular petitioner is not entitled to GPF benefits because ofnon-compliance ofcertain requirements ofthe GPF scheme,the University ofDelhi will pass a speaking order and communicate the same to such petitioner giving the reasons as to how and why such petitioner has failed to comply with the requirement(s)ofthe GPF scheme for not being W.P.(C)No.l259/2014& conn,matters page5of[6] granted the GPF benefits. In such a case any dis-satisfied petitioner or any ofthe other petitioners who feel that complete benefits have not been given to such petitioners, then, in these circumstances, such petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate independent proceedings for seeking enforcement oftheir rights in accordance with law.
3. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
4. Dastito counselsforthe parties. VALMIKIJ.MEHTA,J NOVEMBER 10,2016 Ne W.P.(C)No.l259/20l4& conn,matters page6of[6]