Delhi High Court
Dr. Ramesh Kumar Sharma vs Vice-Chancellor, Delhi University And ... on 29 January, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 29.01.2015
+ WP(C) 7209/2013 and CM No.15513/2013 (stay)
DR. RAMESH KUMAR SHARMA ..... PETITIONER
Versus
VICE-CHANCELLOR, DELHI UNIVERSITY
AND ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Deepika, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Saurabh Banerjee, Adv. for R-1 & 2 Mr. Apoorv Kurup and Mr. Rohit Rathi, Advocates for R-3 CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER,J
1. The petitioner, who has been awarded an Emeritus Fellowship by respondent no.3 i.e., University Grants Commission (UGC), is aggrieved by communications dated 08.07.2013 and 27.09.2013 issued by respondent no.1 and 2. Respondent nos.1 and 2, in effect, represent the University of Delhi. For the sake of convenience, respondent no.1 and 2 would be collectively referred to as the University of Delhi. 1.1 The sum and substance of the aforementioned communications is that the petitioner's association with the University of Delhi stood discontinued, purportedly, in the backdrop of the report / recommendation received from the Department of Philosophy and School of Open Learning (in short S.O.L.).WPC7209/2013 Page 1 of 9
1.2 The petitioner has consequently, assailed communications dated 08.07.2013 and 27.09.2013. Both of which are addressed by the University of Delhi to the UGC, with copies to the petitioner.
2. The grievance of the petitioner arises in the background of the following broad facts :-
2.1 The petitioner was originally employed by the School of Correspondence, which is presently known as S.O.L., where he taught Sanskrit. Having retired from service, he applied for Emeritus Fellowship under a scheme formulated by the UGC. The objective of the scheme was to provide opportunity to superannuated teachers of all recognized Universities and colleges approved under the UGC Act in order to enable them to pursue active research in specified fields.
2.2 The petitioner, in terms of the said scheme made an application to the UGC on 24.03.2011, for grant of Emeritus Fellowship in Philosophy in the University of Delhi. The proposed project, in which, the petitioner was interested in carrying out his research was the "Studies in Ontology of Roderick M.Chisholm". With the application, the petitioner enclosed his curriculum vitae and other relevant testimonials including summary of his research articles, papers and project reports generated qua major research projects.
2.3 This application of the petitioner was routed via the Head of Department of Philosophy in the University of Delhi, with necessary recommendation.
2.4 The UGC based on the application and the recommendation of the Department of Philosophy awarded the petitioner Emeritus Fellowship for 2011-2012. The award of Emeritus Fellowship was conveyed to the petitioner by the UGC vide communication dated 16.11.2011. The broad WPC7209/2013 Page 2 of 9 terms on which fellowship was awarded were as follows :
(i). The petitioner was to be paid honorarium at the rate of Rs.20,000/- p.m. in addition to a contingency grant of Rs.50,000/- p.a.;
(ii). The fellowship was made available from the date of joining upto the age of 70 years or upto two years (non-extendable), whichever is earlier; and
(iii). The Emeritus Fellow was injuncted from holding any other post of profit or be gainfully employed elsewhere either at the time of joining or thereafter, during the tenure of the award.
2.5 In response to communication dated 16.11.2011, the petitioner sent in his acceptance to the UGC. As per terms of the award of fellowship, the petitioner also sent in his joining letter to the Department of Philosophy, University of Delhi, on 05.12.2011. Due intimation in this behalf was also sent to the UGC, by the petitioner, vide communication dated 15.12.2011. 2.6 In the background of the above, a joining report was generated by the UGC, which is indicative of the fact that the period for which the petitioner was awarded Emeritus Fellowship was to commence on 05.12.2011 and, would, end on 04.12.2013.
2.7 What is important is, that the joining report clearly indicated that the petitioner would be provided all necessary facilities during his tenure. The joining report bears the signatures of not only the petitioner but also that of the Head of Department and Registrar of University of Delhi. 2.8 The record seems to suggest that the petitioner wrote several letters on the subject of not being given requisite facilities for carrying on research by the University of Delhi. In this behalf, the petitioner appears to have written letters dated 30.07.2012 and 31.10.2012 to the Head of Department of Philosophy in the University of Delhi; letter dated 30.08.2012 to the Chairman, UGC, and letters dated 19.12.2012 and 08.04.2013 to the Vice WPC7209/2013 Page 3 of 9 Chancellor, University of Delhi.
2.9 In the interregnum, it appears, the UGC vide its letter dated 22.11.2012, sent a brief communication to the Registrar of University of Delhi, which reads as follows :-
"..Attention is invited to this office letter of even no. dated
23.10.2012 (copy enclosed) on the above subject. I am directed to request you once again to submit the comments immediately in this regard for further necessary action. Rather facilities may be provided to the fellow concerned immediately.."
3. It appears that while the petitioner was seeking redressal for himself by writing to various authorities, the Head of the Department vide letter dated 28.08.2012 sought intervention of the Vice-Chancellor of University of Delhi to have the petitioner removed from his department. The Head of the Department, in this communication, sought to give his own perspective to the problem at hand, that is, qua demand of facilities by the petitioner. The Head of the Department, evidently, attempted to convey to the Vice- Chancellor that the petitioner was a difficult man to deal with, who would create a fuss on "trivial issues". In sum, the Head of the Department requested that the petitioner be shifted to his parent department, which was S.O.L. or some other institution, and if none of these alternatives were possible, his association with the University of Delhi, be terminated. 3.1 It is in this background perhaps, that on 04.01.2013, the University of Delhi wrote to S.O.L. that they had not received comments to their earlier communication of 23.11.2012 wherein, they had sought their observations / comments with regard to the transfer of the petitioner from the Department of Philosophy to S.O.L. for the remaining period of his fellowship. 3.2 Evidently, by a written communication dated 16.05.2013, S.O.L. informed the University of Delhi that they had already sent their comments WPC7209/2013 Page 4 of 9 on 11.03.2013, to the effect, that the matter pertained to the Department of Philosophy, University of Delhi as the petitioner's application for award of Emeritus Fellowship had been routed through the said Department. 3.3 A perusal of the communication dated 16.05.2013 would show that, it was in response to a letter dated 02.05.2013 sent by the University of Delhi, despite, an earlier communication of 11.03.2013 on the subject. 3.4 Faced with the aforesaid situation, University of Delhi took recourse to the other alternative which was to discontinue the association of the petitioner with itself. This was, as indicated above, communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 08.07.2013.
3.5 The petitioner being aggrieved wrote to the Vice Chancellor, University of Delhi, on 18.07.2013. Since, the copy of this communication was also marked to the UGC, the UGC vide communication dated 29.07.2013 called upon the University of Delhi to supply the following information :-
(i) the period of work undertaken under the scheme by the petitioner; and (ii) the reason for discontinuation of the scheme in respect of the petitioner by the Department of Philosophy.
3.6 The aforesaid communication of UGC led to the University of Delhi addressing a letter dated 27.09.2013 to the UGC. In this letter, the petitioner briefly indicated that the decision to discontinue the petitioner's association with it under the Emeritus Fellowship Scheme was taken based on the report / recommendation of the Department of Philosophy and S.O.L. A copy of this letter was also marked to the petitioner, amongst others. 3.7 The petitioner, accordingly, made a representation to the Vice- Chancellor, University of Delhi. This representation is dated 07.10.2013. By this representation, the petitioner brought to fore not only his WPC7209/2013 Page 5 of 9 disappointment at the discontinuation of his association with University of Delhi but also highlighted the fact that he had neither been served with a show cause notice in respect of the action taken qua him nor had he been supplied with the report / recommendation of the Department of Philosophy and S.O.L. based on which the said decision was taken.
4. It is in this background that counsels for parties have addressed arguments. The petitioner, was represented by Ms. Deepika, while the University of Delhi was represented by Mr. Banerjee. UGC was represented by Mr. Kurup and Mr. Rathi.
5. Counsels addressed arguments based on their respective pleadings filed in the matter.
6. Ms. Deepika, broadly, contended that the action of discontinuation was not only high handed but also was unfair in as much as instead of addressing the petitioner's difficulties with regard to non-grant of facilities, the University of Delhi chose to terminate his association, which was necessary for continuation of research work. The learned counsel also brought to fore the fact that the honorarium and the contingency fund sanctioned by the UGC in favour of the petitioner for the year 2012-2013 had not been paid to the petitioner. For this purpose, she drew my attention to a communication dated 03.06.2014, which was appended as, Annexure P- 1 to the petition.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Banerjee, even while defending the action taken by the University of Delhi, conveyed that the University of Delhi was willing to extend the relevant facilities to the petitioner, as indicated in paragraph (C) of its counter affidavit for a period no more than five (5) months, which was the period spanning between the date of the first impugned letter (i.e., 08.07.2013) and the date when the Emeritus WPC7209/2013 Page 6 of 9 Fellowship would have ordinarily come to an end (i.e., 04.12.2013). 7.1 Mr. Banerjee further conceded that certain amounts towards honorarium and contingency had been received from UGC which, were otherwise payable to the petitioner, as per the terms of the scheme.
8. In so far as Mr. Kurup was concerned, he submitted that the UGC had given the necessary funds to the University of Delhi in terms of the scheme, and that beyond the funds given, it was not mandated to give any further funds.
8.1 As regards, the extension of tenure of the fellowship, Mr. Kurup conveyed to the court that as an one time exception, this court could extend the tenure having regard to the fact that time had been lost by the petitioner in litigation before this court.
9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, it is clear that while the facts are not in dispute, there is certainly at hand a personality clash between the petitioner and the Head of Department of Philosophy. Notwithstanding that, the petitioner cannot be denied his entitlement under the Scheme. What is due to the petitioner in the form of funds is not in dispute. What is not laid out in black and white in the scheme (at least nothing was shown to me in this behalf by the counsels for parties) are the facilities to be granted to the petitioner for carrying out his research work. Fortunately, both in the counter affidavit and at the hearing held on 19.01.2015, the counsel for University of Delhi had agreed that the University of Delhi would, in the very least, grant the following facilities to the petitioner : "a sofa, chairs, air conditioner, computer with internet, library books available in the Department, 10 library cards of the Central / Arts Library and a seat on the research floor without any teaching loan."
10. I would have thought that this would have settled the matter. What WPC7209/2013 Page 7 of 9 queered the pitch was Mr. Banerjee's stand that these facilities would be made available to the petitioner for an additional period of five (5) months, only. I have put to the petitioner, who is present is court, as to whether the period of five (5) months would be sufficient for him to complete his research work. The petitioner informed me that in view of the disruption since July 2012, he would require an extension of tenure for completion of research work, till December, 2015.
11. Having regard to the above, I am of the view since the award of the Emeritus Fellowship is not in dispute and also given the fact the tenure of two years was disrupted due to non-provision of adequate facilities, in fitness of things, the petitioner's tenure for completion of research work should be extended till he reaches, in terms of the scheme, the age of 70 years.
12. In so far as the release of funds to the petitioner are concerned, it is not disputed by him that he has been paid a sum of Rs.2,37,419/- for the year 2011-2012. Therefore, the balance amount which is payable to the petitioner for 2012-2013 is a total sum of Rs.3,40,000/-; the break-up of which is as follows :
(i). Honorarium Grant Rs.2,87,419/-
(ii). Unspent Honorarium grant of the
year 2011-2012 Rs. 2,581/-
(iii). Contingency Grant Rs. 50,000/-
----------------
Rs.3,40,000/-
-----------------
12.1 As regards, contingency grant, as in the past, money, under the said head will be released against eligible expenses and proof thereof.
WPC7209/2013 Page 8 of 913. Consequent to the above discussion, communications dated 08.7.2013 and 27.9.2013 are set aside. The petitioner will be given all facilities, as set out in paragraph C of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of University of Delhi. Further, the petitioner's Emeritus Fellowship shall continue till he reaches the age of 70 years. As indicated above, the petitioner will also be released funds in terms of the directions set out hereinabove, which admittedly, the University of Delhi, has received from the UGC.
14. The writ petition and the pending application are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The parties will, however, bear their own costs.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J JANUARY 29, 2015 yg WPC7209/2013 Page 9 of 9