Uttarakhand High Court
Rajani Sharma vs Vice Chancellor (Chairman on 17 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:5034-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 498 of 2018
Rajani Sharma --Petitioner
Versus
Vice Chancellor (Chairman, Faculty Appointment
Committee), Uttarakhand Technical
University and others --Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
There is no representation for the petitioner
Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has
sought the following reliefs:
"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the office letters dated 16.07.2018
and 11.09.2018 issued by Director and the decision as
taken by the alleged BOG in its first meeting held on
17th March 2018.
II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing to the respondents to treat the
petitioner to be a permanent employee of the institute
on the post of Assistant Professor in the Department
of Humanities & Applied Sciences, THDC by virtue of
order of appointment dated 30.09.2015 and grant
benefits including difference of arrear of salary"
2. Petitioner was appointed on contract as Assistant
Professor (English) in THDC Institute of Hydropower
Engineering and Technology (hereinafter referred to as
'THDC Institute') vide order dated 25.08.2011. In the
month of August, 2014, services of the petitioner, with
other teachers, was discontinued; they filed Writ
Petition (S/B) No. 193 of 2014, which was decided in
2025:UHC:5034-DB
favour of the teachers serving in THDC Institute,
including the petitioner.
3. In terms of judgment passed by coordinate Bench
in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 193 of 2014, Director of the
Institute issued a letter to petitioner on 23.09.2016,
asking her to join duties in the Institute in terms of
judgment, which shall however be subject to outcome
of the Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
4. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel appearing
for THDC Institute submits that upon petitioner's
rejoining in the Institute, she was paid salary for the
period between 15.07.2015 to 22.09.2016, during
which she remained out of employment, in view of the
undertaking given by her that she was not gainfully
employed during that period.
5. It was subsequently revealed that petitioner
served in a private engineering college, namely, IMS
Engineering College at Ghaziabad, where she was
appointed as Assistant Professor on consolidated salary
of Rs. 50,000/- per month w.e.f. 30.09.2015 and she
served in the said college till resumption of duties in
THDC Institute in terms of judgment of this Court.
6. When aforesaid fact came to the notice of
Competent Authority, a show cause notice was issued
to petitioner on 16.06.2017, asking her to show cause
as to why punitive action be not taken against her for
submitting false affidavit for withdrawing government
money.
2025:UHC:5034-DB
7. Petitioner replied vide letter dated 27.06.2017
wherein she admitted that she served in IMS
Engineering College, Ghaizabad during the period she
was not serving in THDC Institute, however she
contended that IMS Engineering College is not a
Government College, therefore she is not liable to
refund the amount which she received as arrears of
salary.
8. The reply given by petitioner was considered by
Board of Governors of THDC Institute, who did not find
the reply satisfactory and approved recovery of the
amount paid to petitioner with 18 percent interest.
Director of the Institution issued a communication to
petitioner on 16.07.2018, whereby she was asked to
deposit the amount with interest, within 15 days.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent
and upon perusal of the record, we are of the
considered opinion that the amount, which petitioner
received as arrears of salary for the period between
15.07.2015 to 22.09.2016, after submitting affidavit
that she was not gainfully employed elsewhere during
said period, is liable to be recovered from her.
10. No one can be permitted to draw salary for the
same period from two Institutions, more so when THDC
Institute had required the petitioner to disclose as to
whether she was serving anywhere else after her
disengagement from THDC Institute.
11. Since petitioner obtained a benefit by suppression
of facts, therefore, the impugned order dated
2025:UHC:5034-DB
16.07.2018, so far it provides for recovery of the
amount paid as arrears of salary, does not warrant any
interference. However, we find that the interest at 18
percent, which petitioner is made liable to pay on the
amount received by her, as arrears, is excessive. We
therefore provide that petitioner would be liable to pay
simple interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum.
12. Writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
_______________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
____________________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 17th June, 2025
Mahinder/-
MAHIN
DER
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842b
c6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a1
8b08923c, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392
SINGH
BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1B
C9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER
SINGH
Date: 2025.06.18 10:35:11 +05'30'
