Delhi High Court Dismisses Challenge by DU Professor On Deduction of One Day Salary Towards PM CARES Fund

Must Read

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Follow us

The Delhi HC dismissed an appeal that refused the deduction of one day’s salary of the appellant. The appellant is a professor at Delhi University. The university made the said deduction for contributing towards the PM CARES fund. The Court remarked, “Only a stone-hearted person would make such a challenge”. 

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioner is a professor at the University of Delhi and lives on campus. In March 2020, the Chairman, UGC, and Registrar of the University made appeals to contribute to support the cause against the COVID-19 pandemic. The last date for sending objections to the appeal was 2nd April 2020. The university thereafter deducted one day’s salary of Prof. Shreekant Gupta, the appellant. Aggrieved by this, he filed a writ petition at the Delhi HC. The petition, heard by a Single-Judge bench and dismissed. The present case is the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of the Single-Judge bench. 

Arguments Before the Court

Counsel for the appellant argued that the University did not give its employees adequate notice of deduction of one day’s salary. Further, the University deducted one day’s salary of even those employees who had expressed their desire not to make a contribution. He emphasized that the University cannot deduct voluntary contributions without a person’s consent.

Counsel for the University pointed out that the petitioner did not file the writ petition in the prescribed format with necessary undertakings as a PIL. The petitioner asserted that he did not have any personal interest in the litigation.

Court’s Observations

The Court opined that the writ petition is not a Public Interest Litigation. The Court gave two reasons for this. Firstly, that the petitioner did not file it in the prescribed format of a PIL. Secondly, that the teachers and staff of DU aren’t that financially weak that they can’t approach the Court directly.

Subsequently, the Court took the issue of the professor who was not notified of the deductions by the University. The Court observed that the Chairman, UGC, as well as Registrar of the University, had made appeals in March 2020 to make voluntary contributions to the PM CARES fund. It also noted that the last date to raise any objections was 2nd April 2020.

The Court then observed that we now live in the ‘internet age’. It is difficult to believe that the appellant did not know about the appeals even when he lived inside the University campus.

The issues of notice and consent are disputed questions of fact. The Court said that it cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact in a writ petition. It further added that the deduction of one day’s salary of the appellant cannot be “contrary to the public interest or harsh or inequitable”. The Court also stated that it is made to ask itself, wouldn’t a “stone-hearted person” challenge such a decision? 

Court’s Decision

The Court dismissed the appeal with the liberty to the appellant to file a suit for recovery.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -