Delhi High Court
Guru Hargobind Institute Of ... vs Balbir Singh & Ors. on 21 October, 2020
#16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Delivered On: 21.10.2020
LPA 283/2020
GURU HARGOBIND INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & ANR. ..... Appellants
versus
BALBIR SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants : Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajat Aneja and Ms.Bhawna Pandey,
Advocates for R-1 to R-9
Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Standing Counsel
along with Mr. Ibad Mushtaq and Ms. Akanksha
Rai, Advocates for R-10/Jamia
Millia Islamia
Mr. Anil Soni, Standing Counsel along with Mr.
Devesh Dubey, Advocate for R-11/AICTE
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. (Open Court - via Video Conferencing)
The present matter has been taken up for hearing by way of
Video Conferencing on account of COVID-19 pandemic.
CM APPL. 24812/2020 (Exemption)
Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
LPA 283/2020 & CM APPL. 24811/2020 (Interim Stay)
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters
Patent Act has been instituted on behalf of the appellants assailing the
Order dated 31.08.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 4058/2020, titled as 'Balbir
Singh & Ors. vs. Guru Hargobind Institute of Management And
Information Technology & Ors.', whereby, the learned Single Judge
has directed the appellants, as under:
"Hearing has been conducted through Video
Conferencing.
Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on
24.08.2020, affidavits have been filed by Respondent
No.1.
Prima facie, the contents of the affidavits border
on contempt of the Court and are not only contrary to
the orders passed by this Court repeatedly but also the
assurances given by Respondent No.1 in the past on
several dates of hearing. Respondent No.1 has been
from time to time assuring the Court that the salaries of
the teachers and the non-teaching staff shall be
disbursed as some solution was being worked out in
that regard.
Mr. Rajat Aneja learned counsel for the
Petitioners seeks a period of 10 days to file a response
to the Affidavits. Let response to the Affidavits be filed
within a period of 10 days from today.
List the petitions on 18.09.2020.
Till the next date of hearing, operation of the
communication dated16.06.2020 issued by Respondent
No.2 directing 'temporary lay-off of the Petitioners
from Respondent No. I I Institute is stayed."
2. Issue notice.
3. Counsel as above, accept notice on behalf of the respondents.
4. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties
and in view of the financial hardships faced by all the parties
concerned, as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, the only
course of action that commends itself to us is to request the learned
Single Judge to advance the date of hearing of the W.P.(C)
No.4058/2020, at an appropriate application being instituted on behalf
of the appellants, in this behalf.
5. Needless to state that the learned Single Judge shall consider the
application, proposed to be instituted on behalf of the appellants
herein, seeking advancement of the date of hearing sympathetically, in
view of the circumstance antecedent and attendant and adjudicate the
original writ petition, as expeditiously as possible.
6. It is clarified that, we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the respective contentions of the parties, in this proceeding.
7. No further directions are called for.
8. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of. The
pending application also stands disposed of.
9. A copy of this Judgment be provided to learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the parties electronically and be also uploaded
on the website of this Court, forthwith.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
TALWANT SINGH
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 21, 2020
dn/rs
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
