Dr Veena Gaur & ORS v. University Of Delhi

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7069/2018 DR VEENA GAUR & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Mohit D. Ram and Ms. Monisha Handa, Advs.

versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Mr. Aman Sinha, Sr. Adv. and Mr.

Sachin Datta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Mohinder J. S. Rupal, Mr. Pravesh Thakur, Mr. Prang Newmai and Ms.

Slomita Rai Advs. for R-1

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

O R D E R

% 01.11.2018 1.

Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks directions against the respondent no.1 to pay the salaries of the petitioners as per their appointment letters dated 01.09.2017, 01.01.2018 and 02.05.2018. 2.

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that the Head of Department of Buddhist Studies vide letter dated 01.09.2017 forwarded the recommendation of the Selection Committee for ad hoc appointments. The respondent, after examining the matter, responded to the letter dated 10.07.2018, informing the Head of Department of Buddhist Studies that as the matter of appointment is sub judice and pending before the Hon'be High Court, hence in the absence of required approval, the purported appointments are illegal and void ab initio. It is further stated that the respondent never approved the subsequent appointments of the petitioners.

3.

Counsel for the respondent submits that the appointment is not done as per the rules and procedures of the University and without approval of the University, therefore the appointments are illegal and void ab initio.

4.

The case before this Court is that the respondents may be directed to pay the salaries of the petitioners as per their appointment letters mentioned above. It is not the case of the petitioner before this Court that their appointment may be regularized or they may be continued in service. Thus, the stand of the respondent that their appointments were not approved by the respondent has no relevancy in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5.

There is no dispute that the petitioners were issued appointment letters by the Head of the Department of Buddhist and accordingly petitioners accepted their appointment letters and submitted their joining reports. Since the petitioners have worked, therefore, the respondents are bound to pay the amount to the petitioners in terms of the letters of appointment mentioned above.

6.

Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondents to pay the salaries to the petitioners pursuant to the appointment letters mentioned above for the period they worked within two weeks from the receipt of this order.

7.

Petition is disposed of.

8.

Order dasti under signatures of Court Master. SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J NOVEMBER 01, 2018/gb