M K Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors.
2018 Latest Caselaw 848 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          Date of Order: February 05, 2018
+     W.P.(C) 1016/2018
      M K GUPTA                                      ..... Petitioner
                        Through:     Mr. Mohan Kumar, Advocate

                        Versus

      UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                        ..... Respondents
                         Through: Mr. P.S. Singh, Ms. Annu Singh &
                         Mr. Rajpal Singh, Advocates for respondent
                         No.1-UOI
                         Mr. Apoorv Kurup & Ms. Isha Mittal,
                         Advocates, for respondent No.2-UGC
                         Ms. Monika Arora, Advocate for respondent
                         No.3-JNU
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
                         ORDER

(ORAL)

1. Petitioner seeks parity with Senior Technical Assistant and claims consequential benefits in pursuance to extract of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU)'s Resolution of 27th September, 1995 (Annexure P-1). Petitioner claims that for the relief sought in this petition, a Representation of 2nd January, 2017 (Annexure P-9) was addressed to JNU. It is submitted that in terms of Communication of 6 th March, 2017 (Annexure P-10) of JNU, the said Representation of 2nd January, 2017 (Annexure P-9) of petitioner, was forwarded to Secretary of University Grants Commission (UGC).

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits vide Communication of 7th November, 2014 (Annexure P-6 colly), UGC has already declined

petitioner's Representation of 17th July, 2014 (Annexure P-9) by passing a cryptic order.

3. Since, impugned Communication of 7th November, 2014 (Annexure P-6 colly) is bereft of any reasoning or rationale, therefore it is set aside with direction to Secretary, UGC to decide petitioner's Representation of 2nd January, 2017 (Annexure P-9) afresh by passing a speaking order within six weeks, so that it is known as to why pay scales of Statistical Assistants cannot be at par with that of Senior Technical Assistants, particularly when they have no further promotional avenue after rendering service of thirty years. It is required to be explained as to why petitioner should be made to stagnate. The fate of the Representation of 2nd January, 2017 (Annexure P-9) be made known to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioners may avail of the remedies, as available in law, if need be.

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

SUNIL GAUR (JUDGE)

FEBRUARY 05, 2018 r