Anil Gupta v. Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi And ANR.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order:

December 08, 2017 + W.P.(C) 10930/2017 ANIL GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Avadh Kaushik, Advocate

Versus

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY, NEW DELHI AND ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Ms. Monika Arora, Standing Counsel for JNU & Ms. Vibno Tripthi, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Apoorv Kurup & Mr. Anupam, Advocates for respondent No.2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER

ORAL 1.

Petitioner claims to be a Statistical Assistant with respondentUniversity since the year 1992 and in this petition, grant of first upward movement in the scale of `2200-4000 on completion of eight years of service on 22nd January, 2000, is sought claiming parity with the Senior Technical Assistants in terms of E.C. Resolution No.7.15 of 27th September, 1995 and E.C. Resolution No.5.1 of 12th July, 1998 and consequently, upward movement under MACP on completion of ten years of service is also sought by petitioner with all consequential reliefs. 2.

Learned counsel for petitioner draws the attention of this Court to first respondent's communication of 22nd September, 2014 (Annexure PW.P.(C) 10930/2017

15) to point out that petitioner's case for parity has been already recommended and the competent authority i.e. the Rector, Jawahar Lal Nehru University (JNU), has to direct implementation of E.C. Resolutions and give parity with Senior Technical Assistants, as has been earlier ordered by Rector, JNU on 9th September, 1997 (Annexure P-5). It is further submitted by learned counsel that petitioner would be making a Representation afresh before Rector, JNU on the strength of earlier recommendation of Rector, JNU of 9th September, 1997 (Annexure P-5) to seek implementation of E.C. Resolutions to claim parity with Senior Technical Assistants and consequential reliefs within a period of two weeks.

3.

If any such Representation is received by the respondents, then, the first respondent i.e. the competent authority shall proceed to consider and decide it, by passing a speaking order within a period of twelve weeks and its fate be communicated to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies, as available in law. 4.

With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of. 5.

A copy of this order be given dasti to counsel representing both the sides.

SUNIL GAUR (JUDGE) DECEMBER 08, 2017 r W.P.(C) 10930/2017