A.P. Suri v. University Of Delhi And ANR
$-26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 42, 49, 50, 51 and 59- *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 1259/2014 DRRAGHUBIRVEDALANKAR Mr. Prateek Yadav, Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Advocate.
DELHI UNIVERSITY & ORS Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal, Advocate for W.P.(C) 3318/2014 NIRMAL KUMAR Mr. Prateek Dahiya, Advocate.
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS Ms. Beenashaw N. Soni, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.3.
W.P.(C) 4721/2014 MAN MOHAN KAUR Mr. Shankar Raju, Advocate.
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS W.P.(C) No.l2S9/20i4 & conn, matters Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.
W.P.(C) 7766/2014 KAMLESH MALHOTRA & ANR.
Petitioners Mr. Tanuj Khurana, Advocate with Mr, P. Chaitanyashil, Advocate.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Mr. Mohinder TS. Rupal, Advocate Ms. Beenashaw N. Soni, Advocate with Mr. Aakash Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.5.
W.P.(C) 558/2015 NIRMAL AHLUWALIA Mr. Malaya Kumar Chand, Advocate with Mr. Shivam Pandey, Advocate.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS Mr. R.P. Sharma, Advocate with Mr.
Vaibhav Mehra, Advocate for respondent No.4.
W.P.(C) 8068/2015 KATYAYANIPRASAD BENJWAL & ANR Petitioners Mr. Tanuj Khurana, Advocate with Mr. P. Chaitanyashil, Advocate.
Versus
'7 UNION OF INDIA & ORS W.P.(C) 290/2016 and C.M. No.l 194/2016 (directions) GOPAL JI None, UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ANR ~ Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate with Ms.
Seema Dolo, Advocate with Ms.
Surbhi Mehta, Advocate for r> W.P.(C) 292/2016 and C.M. No.1200/2016 (for directions) RAMESH GRAND GUPTA None.
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ANR ., Mr. Amit Bansal, 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 None.
Versus
page 3, of 6
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ANR Mr. Anurag Mathur, Advocate for W.P.(C) 3687/2016 NARENDER KUMAR Ms. Rekha Rustagi, Advocate.
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
Mr. Anil Panwar, Advocate with Mr.
Ram Kumar Jha, Advocate for respondent No.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 of the Contributory Provident Fund (GPF) scheme provided petitioners factually satisfy the requirements of the GPF scheme. Learned counsel for the Delhi University admits that the legal issue is covered in favour of the petitioners by the Division Bench judgment of this Court
/( passed in a bunch of cases with lead case being Smt. Shashi Kiran and Ors. Vs. Union of India 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 of four weeks jfrom today. The University of Delhi within a r period of six weeks thereafter will consider the representations and pass a speaking order giving the benefits to the petitioners of the 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 of Delhi, the said benefits be released to the petitioners within a period of four weeks of the passing of the order.
If according to the University of Delhi, a particular petitioner is not entitled to GPF benefits because of non-compliance of certain requirements of the GPF scheme, the University of Delhi 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) of the GPF scheme for not being W.P.(C) No.
granted the GPF benefits. In such a case any dis-satisfied petitioner or any of the 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 of their rights in accordance with law.
3.
The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
4.
Dasti to counsels for the parties.
VALMIKIJ. MEHTA, J NOVEMBER 10,2016 Ne W.P.(C) No.l259/20l4 & conn, matters