V JEGANATHAN ARULMONI Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY, GNCTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by two persons who claim themselves as teachers in the respondent no. 3/Delhi Technological University (in short 'University'). The claim in the writ petition is for benefit to the petitioners of increase of age of retirement to the age of 65 years. The writ petition seeks application of the principle of equal pay for equal work and also states that the petitioners are very much lecturers/teachers and once other lecturers/ teachers of respondent no.3/University have been given benefit of increase of age of retirement to 65 years, petitioners also must be given similar treatment by increasing their age of retirement to 65 years.

(2.) RESPONDENT nos. 1 and 2 in the writ petition are Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Department of Training and Technical Education. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 have filed their counter affidavit in which it is specifically mentioned that the petitioners are not the employees of the respondent no. 3/University but are employees of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and for which purpose reference is made in the counter affidavit of respondent nos. 1 and 2 to the provision of Section 4(d) of the Delhi Technological University Act, 2009 (in short 'Act'). In the counter affidavit, decision of the learned Governor of Delhi is also referred by which employees of the respondent no. 3/University are continuing as deemed employees of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi on deemed deputation to respondent no. 3/University. In the counter affidavit claim of parity claimed by petitioners both the regular/ordinary lecturers/teachers in respondent no.3/University is denied and respondent nos. 1 and 2 also question the legality of action of respondent no.3/University in re -designating foreman instructors such as the petitioners as lecturers. Claim of parity of petitioners to lecturers of respondent no.3/University can also not be granted to petitioners who are foreman -instructors because petitioners are employees of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and other foreman -instructors employed with Govt. of NCT of Delhi (not working with respondent no.3/University as deputationists from Govt. of NCT of Delhi) are to retire at the age of 62 years and not 65 years.

(3.) WITH respect to the writ petition, two aspects have to be examined by this Court, either for entertaining of the writ petition itself or for grant of interim orders. The first aspect is that, if petitioners are employees of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, this Court would not have jurisdiction inasmuch as, service disputes of employees of Govt. of NCT of Delhi with Govt. of NCT of Delhi have to be decided by Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'CAT'), Principal Bench, New Delhi and not by this Court. The second aspect is that, even assuming this Court has jurisdiction, whether increase of age which has been brought about by the respondent no.3/University's Board has received the necessary approval of the Chancellor/Lieutenant Governor of Delhi (in short 'LG') in terms of the Section 31(3) of the Act read with Section 30(c) of the Act specifically with respect to re -designation of foreman instructors as lecturers. As per these statutory provisions, terms and conditions for continuation of teachers and other employees of respondent no. 3/University can only be changed with the prior approval of the Chancellor/LG and re -designation of foreman instructors as lecturers for the foreman instructors to get the benefit of service conditions applicable to lecturers/teachers will amount to change of service conditions of foreman instructors which have financial implications. I put a specific query to the counsel for the petitioner as to whether petitioners have exercised the option in terms of the Section 4(d) of the Act for them to have become employees of respondent no.3/University and hence they do not continue as employees of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, and to this specific query no document could be pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners have exercised the option to not remain as employees of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and they have become employees of respondent no. 3/University. Therefore, petitioners continue to be employees of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and in this regard the following averments made in the counter affidavit by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 become relevant: -