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

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

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

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -