Dr. Kuldeep Ahuja vs University Of Delhi And Ors.
2018 Latest Caselaw 2537 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                        Date of Order: April 23, 2018
+      W.P.(C) 4035/2018 & CM 15950/2018
       DR. KULDEEP AHUJA                              ..... Petitioner
                        Through: Mr. Swetank Shantanu,
                        Mr. Pratap Shanker and Ms. Surabhi, Advocates
                           Versus
       UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS.             ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S.Rupal,
                     Mr. Prang Newmai & Ms. Slomita Rai,
                     Advocates for respondent No.1
                     Mr. Anurag Mathur, Advocate for respondent
                     No.2
                     Mr. Apoorv Kurup & Ms. Isha Mital, Advocate
                     for respondent No. 3- UGC
                     Mr. Dev. P. Bhardwaj, CGSC & Mr. Kanish
                     Arora, Advocate for respondent No.4-UOI
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
                           ORDER

(ORAL)

1. On the subject of retirement age of Instructors in Stenography and Typewriting, respondent-College had send a Communication to respondent-University Grants Commission (UGC) on 31st May, 2017 (Annexure P-24) and in the said Communication, respondent-UGC was urged to reconsider the matter of retirement age of Instructors in Stenography and Typewriting and to fix their age of retirement at 65 years, at par with the rest of the teachers.

2. According to petitioner's counsel, there is no response to the aforesaid Communication of 31st May, 2017 (Annexure P-24) by respondent-UGC.

3. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with permission to petitioner to make a concise Representation to fourth Respondent within a week. Upon receipt of such a Representation, the fourth respondent shall effectively consider it and pass a speaking order thereon, within a period of six weeks and the fate of the Representation be made known to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be. So far as respondent-UGC is concerned, it is directed to give a speaking response to the Communication of 31st May, 2017 (Annexure P-24) within six weeks to petitioner.

4. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are disposed of.

Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for petitioner, third and fourth respondents.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

APRIL 23, 2018 r