High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/8134/2016

Sunita Chhakara v. Director Netaji Subhas Institute Of Technology & ANR.

2016-09-23Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Najmi Waziri2 pages

$~17 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 8134/2016 SUNITA CHHAKARA ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate.

Versus

DIRECTOR NETAJI SUBHAS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Ms. Latika Chaudhury for Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate for R-1.

Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, ASC with Mr. Shiva Sharma, Advocate for GNCTD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

O R D E R

% 23.09.2016 It is the petitioner's case that despite her husband's ad hoc service being regularized by the order of 11.7.2014, the pensionary benefits are not been released to her.

The learned counsel for the respondent who appears on receipt of advance copy of the petition submits that the husband of the petitioner Late Mr. Dhirender Kumar Chhakara had worked only for 4 1⁄2 years on ad hoc basis and he passed away on 23.6.1998 whereas the order of 11.7.2014 is applicable to other employees who have, inter alia, continued in service for more than 16 years thereafter. Therefore, the benefit of such regularization itself would be inapplicable; besides when the case is under review and examination by the GNCTD.

The learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that Director of

Technical Education has already rejected the petitioner's request for release of pensionary benefits on account of regularization of the services.

She further submits that Late Mr. Dhirender Kumar Chhakara may not even qualify for the pensionary benefits because evidently he has not put in the qualifying years of service. At this stage, Mr. Naresh Kaushik, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no response from the respondents to the various representations made by the petitioner. Accordingly, at his request, the petition is directed to be treated as representation by the respondent, who shall consider the same and dispose it off with a reasoned order within four weeks from today. Should the respondent require any clarification from the petitioner, due notice shall be given to her.

The petition is disposed off in the above terms. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master. NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 'AA'