Delhi High Court
Nilofer Rizvi vs Jamia Millia Islamia And Ors. on 3 April, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: April 03, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 133/2016
NILOFER RIZVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.K. Rungta, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Shivankar Shukla and Mr. Prashant
Singh, Advocates
versus
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA AND ORS. ....Respondents
Through: Mr. Apurb Lal and Ms.Meenu
Pandey, Advocates for respondents No.1 & 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Non-availability of funds is the reason put forth in the impugned
Communication of 11th December, 2015 (Annexure-A) by respondent-
University, when petitioner vide her applications of 28th September and
4th November, 2015 had sought gratuity and leave encashment payable to
her. It is the case of petitioner that she had joined as Programme Assistant
in Population Education Project, SRC, Jamia Millia Islamia w.e.f. 11th
January, 1988 on ad-hoc basis. As per petitioner's appointment letter of
14th May, 1990 (Annexure-C), petitioner had applied on 14th December,
1989 for the post of Programme Associate (Population Education), she
was appointed on the said post on temporary basis and as per petitioner's
appointment letter (Annexure-C), the place of her duty was State
Resource Centre, Jamia Millia Islamia. Vide Office Order of 1st June,
1998, petitioner was promoted as Associate Programme Co-ordinator and
vide Office Order of 30th April, 2007, she was promoted as Programme
Co-ordinator. It is matter of record that petitioner has retired as
Programme Co-ordinator on 30th September, 2015 and prior thereto, vide
letter of 28th September, 2015 (Annexure-D), petitioner had sought
payment of gratuity and leave encashment while highlighting that gratuity
and leave encashment has been already paid to her colleagues i.e.Mr.
Praveen Arora in November, 1991, Mrs. Nishant Farooq in September,
2004, Mr. S. Rahman in July, 2005, Mr. Z.H. Qureshi in August, 2013,
Mr. Shahab Siddiqui in October, 2013 and Mr.A.A. Suharwardi in
December, 2014.
2. The stand of respondent-University in its Communication of 1st
June, 1985 (Annexure-F) to the Ministry of Education and Culture is that
the Director of State Resource Centre has full working authority over the
operation of the budget, appointment of staff and carrying out the
functions of the State Resource Centre and the control of the Central
Jamia Millia is minimal. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent-
University, the stand taken is that due to non-receipt of grant from
respondent-Union of India, there is paucity of funds. In paragraph No.12
of the writ petition, it has been highlighted that in the years 2013 to 2015,
gratuity and leave encashment has been paid to Mr. Z.H. Qureshi in
August, 2013, Mr. Shahab Siddiqui in October, 2013 and Mr.A.A.
Suharwardi in December, 2014. It is also averred in this paragraph that
Mr. Z.H. Qureshi has been granted benefit of MACP in June, 2015. In the
corresponding paragraph No.12 of the counter affidavit of respondent-
University, it is simply stated that the averments made in this paragraph
are not fully correct and that the liability of State Resource Centre cannot
be borne by respondent-University.
3. At the final hearing of this petition, learned senior counsel for
petitioner has produced the Guidelines for Management, Planning and
Operation of the State Resource Centres issued by National Literacy
Mission, Ministry of Human Resource Development, which envisages
creation of a Development Fund of the Resource Centres generated from
the fees collected from the trainees, donations, consultancy fees for the
programmes conducted by Resource Centres on behalf of other
departments/agencies and any income other than grants received from the
Government of India. Guideline No.8 of the aforesaid Guidelines clearly
provides that the amount of the Development Fund shall be spent broadly
on the following items: -
Programme and activities of RC.
Purchase of land, construction of office-building for
RC, repair and renovation of RC building.
Not more than 25% of the fund generated in a year
may be utilized towards the RC Staff Welfare activities,
that may include the retirement benefits etc.
The proposals for incurring expenditure from the
development fund shall be placed in the meeting of the
governing Body in which the presence of the Government of
India representative is necessary."
4. It is also matter of record that respondent-Union of India has
chosen not to file the counter affidavit despite this Court's directive of
10th November, 2016. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent-
Union of India at the final hearing of this petition.
5. After considering the submissions advanced on behalf of both the
sides and on perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that
petitioner's entitlement to gratuity and leave encashment is not in dispute.
Denial of payment of gratuity and leave encashment to petitioner is on
account of paucity of funds with State Resource Centre, which is funded
by Government of India and the control of respondent-University in the
functioning and affairs of the State Resource Centre in question is
minimal.
6. In light of afore-noted peculiarity of this case and with a view to
ensure speedy redressal of petitioner's grievance, it is deemed appropriate
to dispose of this petition with a mandamus to the Director of State
Resource Centre in question to effectively consider the release of amount
of gratuity and leave encashment payable to petitioner, out of the
Development Fund in terms of the Guidelines for Management, Planning
and Operation of the State Resource Centres issued by National Literacy
Mission, Ministry of Human Resource Development, within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of this order and petitioner be
intimated about its outcome within two weeks thereafter, so that
petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be.
7. In light of decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C)
1186/2012 titled Government of NCT of Delhi v. SK Srivastava, rendered
on 29th February, 2012, entitlement of petitioner to the interest on the
amount of gratuity, leave encashment, etc., be also dealt with by the
Director of State Resource Centre in question while passing a reasoned
order.
8. The Director of State Resource Centre in question be apprised of
this order forthwith to ensure its compliance.
9. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 03, 2018
s
