Manisha Priyadarshini vs Sri Aurobindo College €“ Evening ...
2019 Latest Caselaw 3855 Del

$~3
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                               Date of decision:20.08.2019

+        W.P.(C) 8518/2019 with CM APPLs. 37171/2019, 35150-51/2019
       MANISHA PRIYADARSHINI                  ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, Mr. Kush
                             Chaturvedi and Ms. Priyashree
                             Sharma, Advs.
                    versus

       SRI AUROBINDO COLLEGE -
       EVENING & ORS.                           ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Rajinder Dhawan and Mr. B.S.
                             Rana, Advs. for R-1 & 2
                             Mr. Mohinder J S Rupal, Ms. Aditi
                             Shastri and Mr. Prang Newmai,
                             Advs. for University of Delhi

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                         J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks directions thereby

quashing the impugned letter of termination dated 29.05.2019 issued

by the respondent No. 1-college and direct the respondent No. 1 to

reinstate the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor on Ad-hoc

basis from 20.03.2019.

2. Case of the petitioner is that he has been employed by the University

of Delhi on Ad-hoc basis since 2013. She has completed tenure of

more than 5 years with the University of Delhi of which tenure of four

and a half years are at Sri Aurobindo - Evening College.

3. The petitioner was appointed on 07.08.2013 on Ad-hoc basis as an

Assistant Professor, Department of English in Miranda House,

University of Delhi for a period of 4 months. On 07.01.2014, the

petitioner was further employed as an Assistant Professor,

Department of English, on Ad-hoc basis in Janki Devi Memorial

College, University of Delhi for a period of 1 month 17 days. On

25.04.2014, the petitioner was further employed on Ad - hoc basis as

an Assistant Professor, Department of English in Kamala Nehru

College, University of Delhi for a period of 2 months 5 days. On

20.08.2014, the petitioner was then employed on Ad-hoc basis as an

Assistant Professor, Department of English in the respondent-college

and continued to work on Ad-hoc basis till 21.01.2019 when she

proceeded to go on her maternity leave, after which the college in a

wholly illegal and mala fide manner sought to remove the petitioner

from the rolls of the college.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the regular

renewal of the contract on behalf of the petitioner by the respondent

No. 5-college, this is the petitioner's 5th year at the institution, of

which four and a half academic years have been successfully

completed. So far, the contract which has a specific term of 4 months

each has been continuously renewed from 2014-2019, after a working

day's break, till the end of every academic session. The last contract

was renewed on 19.11.2018 till 18.03.2019.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the petitioner is

the senior most Ad-hoc Assistant Professor in the respondent-college

and as she was expecting her first baby, the petitioner sent a

representation for Maternity leave and whatever benefit she is entitled

under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 through the Principal of the

respondent - college, as her expected delivery date was 22.02.2019,

for which she was required to go to her native town of Chhapra,

Bihar, where her mother is a practicing gynaecologist, for preventive

measures as there were minor complications with her pregnancy.

6. The petitioner sent request for maternity leave from 21.01.2019 to

24.05.2019 to which there was no response. Thereafter, the petitioner

filed W.P.(C) No. 3610/2019, challenging the arbitrary action of the

respondents in denying her the statutory maternity benefits guaranteed

under the Constitution and Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 which is

pending adjudication.

7. Admitted fact in the petition is that the contract of the petitioner with

the respondent-college is from 19.11.2018 to 18.03.2019. Whether the

petitioner shall get the benefit of the maternity leave or not, is not the

subject matter of the present writ petition. The petitioner vide the

present petition is seeking direction thereby directing the respondents

to reinstate her in service and set aside the letter dated 29.05.2019,

wherein the respondent-college has stated that the petitioner is no

more on the rolls of the respondent-college.

8. The communication dated 29.05.2019 is pursuant to the e-mail dated

27.05.2019 sent by the petitioner and accordingly, the respondent -

college informed the petitioner that she was appointed as Assistant

Professor purely on Ad-hoc basis vide letter dated 19.11.2018, with

effect from 19.11.2018 till 18.03.2019. The said tenure has already

ended on 18.03.2019 and therefore, the petitioner is not on the rolls of

the respondent - college after 18.03.2019.

9. Since, it is an admitted case of the petitioner that her contract with the

respondent - college was with effect from 19.11.2018 to 18.03.2019,

therefore, no question arises for allowing the petitioner to resume her

duties unless the period of contract is extended by the college.

10. In view of the above stated facts, this Court is of the considered

opinion that there is no merit in the present petition. The same is

accordingly dismissed in limine. Pending applications also stand

disposed of.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE

August 20th, 2019 PB