VED BHASHAN SHARMA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy in the present case revolves around the question as to whether the Petitioner had been appointed to an ex cadre post of Senior Techhical Assistant "(for handling GLC Counters). If this is so, the Petitioner's contention that he cannot be assigned any other duties may be correct. In terms of the Respondents" Notice dated 4th October, 1999 the Petitioner was directed to Join a team which was invested with the task "to expedite the long-pending and urgent Stock Verification (both consumable and non-consumables) in the department." The Petitioner remonstrated against this Notice the very next day, inter alia, stating that his "appointment was. for the instruments i.e. HPLC, Scintillation Counter etc." in which he had developed expertise. It appears that the Petitioner, despite his objections, joined the stock verification duty. Respondent No.3, Head of Department, Department of Zoology, University of Delhi appears to have failed to address the fundamental objection of the Petitioner inasmuch as he understood the Petitioner to have requested for "an assignment of alternative duties" and expressed his inability to entertain it, as is evident from his letter dated 12.10.1999.

(2.) Simultaneously with the notice dated 4/10/1999, the Respondents also issued an Office Order of even date informing all the 'technical staff whose names were given in the enclosed list of their newly assigned duties; thereby the Petitioner was assigned the duties of Store-in-Charge. Immediately on receipt of the above-mentioned letter dated 12.10.1999 of the Head of the Department, the Petitioner again recorded his Objections in writing to the effect that while he had reported to Dr. A.K. Singh for stock verification, he should be continued in the Central Instrumentation Facility. However, Respondent No.3, in terms of letter dated 20/10/1999 called upon the Petitioner to report to the duty of Store-in-Charge, relying on a decision of the University that all non-teaching employees of the Department, regardless of their appointment status (General/Ex cadre) are "required to perform such duties as may be assigned to him by the Head of the Department and will be required to work in accordance with the needs of the Department." The Petitioner again replied immediately, reminding Respondent No.3 that the decision of the Departmental Committee taken on 13.8.1999 to the effect that Shri B.M. Thapiliyal would be Store-in-Charge had not been implemented. The Petitioner drew attention to letters of the University dated 23/02/1988 and 4/06/1987 'to the effect "that a person who has been appointed against specialised post would not be allowed to undertake the work of other specialised post." These submissions were reiterated to the Head of the Department by the Petitioner in his letter dated 25/10/1999.

(3.) A Memorandum dated 5/11/1999"was issued to the Petitioner calling upon him to Show Cause as to why action should not be initiated against him for his not attending the duties assigned by the Head of the Department. Both sides appear to have resolutely adhered to their respective stands. A Disciplinary Inquiry appears to have been instituted. However, by the Orders of Hon'ble A.K. Sikri, J. dated 8.5.2000, it was recorded that if the Petitioner even at that point of time started discharging the duties assigned to him, the proposed disciplinary action would be withdrawn'. It is not in controversy that Petitioner has acted on this offer and has started performing the duties of Store-in-Charge, without prejudice to the rights and contentions in the Writ Petition.