Prof Sachidanand Sinha & ANR. v. Jawaharlal Nehru University

$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + PROF SACHIDANAND SINHA & ANR.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Abhik Chimni, Mr. Pranjal, Mr. Rishab Gupta, Mr. Gurpal Singh, Advocates.

versus JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY .....Respondent Through:

Mr. V. Rajasekaran, Mr. Karan Prakash, Mr.

Harshvardhan Korada, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 25.09.2025 1.

The petitioners have filed this writ petition for grant of interest @ 6% per annum for the period of delay in release of their retirement gratuity by the respondent - Jawaharlal Nehru University ["University"]. 2.

Mr. Abhik Chimni, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners' case is virtually identical to the cases of the petitioners in W.P.(C) 3756/2020 [Geetha B. Nambissan v. Jawaharlal Nehru University, Through Its Registrar and connected matters], which was disposed of on 22.05.2025. As in those cases, the petitioners herein, who were members of the faculty of the University, were subjected to disciplinary proceedings in respect of casual leave taken by them on 31.07.2018, which was characterised by the University as a "strike". The The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

chargesheets were challenged by the petitioners therein, as well as the present petitioners in W.P.(C) 8686/2019, which remains pending in this Court. Disciplinary proceedings have been stayed by order dated 14.08.2019, which was upheld by the Division Bench on 30.09.2019. 3.

In Geetha B. Nambissan, the petitions were disposed of on the basis of the following statement on behalf of the University: "6. Mr. Vasanth Rajasekaran, learned Senior Standing Counsel for JNU, submits that the (gratuity dues of all the petitioners will be released within a period of four weeks) from today. The respondents are directed to do so, (alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the gratuity became due). The respondents will also furnish computations of the gratuity amount to the petitioners. In the event there is any dispute as to the quantification, the parties will try to sort out the same, failing which the petitioners will be entitled to approach the Controlling Authority under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act."

[Emphasis supplied.] 4.

According to the present petitioners, their gratuity was also paid only after the aforesaid order dated 22.05.2025. In the case of petitioner No. 1, who retired on 31.08.2022, it was paid in terms of an Office Order dated 28.05.2025 (Annexure P-3 to the writ petition), and in the case of petitioner No. 2, who retired on 30.06.2020, it was paid in terms of an Office Order dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-6 to the writ petition). 5.

In these circumstances, the petitioners seek interest @ 6% per annum for the period of delay, consistent with the directions in Geetha B. Nambissan.

6.

By order dated 22.09.2025, Mr. Vasanth Rajasekaran, learned counsel for the respondent, was requested to take instructions as to whether there is any distinction in the present case. The only distinction pointed out is that gratuity was released in Geetha B. Nambissan only The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

after the orders of this Court, whereas it has already been released to the present petitioners without express judicial direction. 7.

I am of the view that this distinction is misconceived. The petitioners were admittedly similarly placed to the petitioners in the Geetha B. Nambissan batch. Their gratuity was also withheld on the same ground, and was paid only after the orders in that batch of petitions on 22.05.2025. In the case of the present petitioners, the gratuity of petitioner No. 1 was paid 46 months after he retired, and petitioner No. 2 was paid 60 months after he retired. They are entitled to similar relief of interest, in parity with the said batch.

8.

The writ petition is therefore allowed, and the University is directed to pay interest on the amount of retirement gratuity paid to the petitioners for the period of delay, i.e., from the dates the gratuity became due until the date it was actually paid. The payment of interest be made within six weeks from today.

PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 25, 2025 'Bhupi/JM'/ The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.