Dr. M. Padma Suresh And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors.
2018 Latest Caselaw 406 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Date of Order: January 16, 2018

+                            W.P.(C) 380/2018
        DR. M. PADMA SURESH AND ORS.                        ..... Petitioners

                             Through:   Mr. Vinay Ranjan, Advocate
                    versus

        UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                     .....Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Manish Mohan and Mr.
                      Nivesh Sharma, Advocates for respondent-UOI
                      Mr. Santosh Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Sharma and
                      Mr. Manav Gill, Advocates for respondent No.3
                      Mr. Apoorv Kurup and Ms. Isha Mital,
                      Advocate for respondent-UGC
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                             ORDER

(ORAL)

1. Petitioners are Associate Professors working in respondent- College, who are aggrieved by anomaly in their pay fixation. In this regard, petitioners have purportedly made Representations from time to time to respondent-College and to respondent-University through proper channel. Such Representations are appended as Annexure P-1 Colly. to this petition. Learned counsel for petitioners, on instructions, submits that petitioners have not received any response to Representations made by them.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that respondent-University vide its Communication of 3rd January, 2014 (Annexure P-1 colly.) had

informed respondent-College that as and when guidelines are received from respondent-UGC, action would be taken regarding the pay anomaly. It is pointed out by petitioners' counsel that the pay of a colleague of petitioners has been already stepped up by respondent and it is so evident from RTI information of 14th June, 2016 (Annexure P-3 colly.). Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners' case is squarely covered by Supreme Court's decision in Gurcharan Singh Grewal and Another v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others, (2009) 3 SCC 94.

3. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition while calling upon respondent-UGC to communicate the guidelines on the subject of anomaly in pay fixation to respondent-University within four weeks from today, if not already done. Petitioners are also permitted to make a composite and concise Representation to respondent-College within a period of four weeks from today and upon receiving such Representation, respondent-College shall pass a speaking order thereon within a period of twelve weeks and fate of Representation be conveyed to petitioners within two weeks thereafter, so that petitioners may avail of remedies as available in law, if need be.

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

Dasti to counsel for the parties.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 16, 2018 s