NILOFER RIZVI Vs. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Non-Availability of funds is the reason put forth in the impugned Communication of 11th December, 2015 (Annexure-A) by respondentUniversity, when petitioner vide her applications of 28th September and 4 th November, 2015 had sought gratuity and leave encashment payable to her. It is the case of petitioner that she had joined as Programme Assistant in Population Education Project, SRC, Jamia Millia Islamia w.e.f. 11th January, 1988 on ad-hoc basis. As per petitioner's appointment letter of 14th May, 1990 (Annexure-C), petitioner had applied on 14th December, 1989 for the post of Programme Associate (Population Education), she was appointed on the said post on temporary basis and as per petitioner's appointment letter (Annexure-C), the place of her duty was State Resource Centre, Jamia Millia Islamia. Vide Office Order of 1st June, 1998, petitioner was promoted as Associate Programme Co-ordinator and vide Office Order of 30th April, 2007, she was promoted as Programme Co-ordinator. It is matter of record that petitioner has retired as Programme Co-ordinator on 30th September, 2015 and prior thereto, vide letter of 28th September, 2015 (Annexure-D), petitioner had sought payment of gratuity and leave encashment while highlighting that gratuity and leave encashment has been already paid to her colleagues i.e.Mr. Praveen Arora in November, 1991, Mrs. Nishant Farooq in September, 2004, Mr. S. Rahman in July, 2005, Mr. Z.H. Qureshi in August, 2013, Mr. Shahab Siddiqui in October, 2013 and Mr.A.A. Suharwardi in December, 2014.

(2.) The stand of respondent-University in its Communication of 1st June, 1985 (Annexure-F) to the Ministry of Education and Culture is that the Director of State Resource Centre has full working authority over the operation of the budget, appointment of staff and carrying out the functions of the State Resource Centre and the control of the Central Jamia Millia is minimal. In the counter affidavit filed by respondentUniversity, the stand taken is that due to non-receipt of grant from respondent-Union of India, there is paucity of funds. In paragraph No.12 of the writ petition, it has been highlighted that in the years 2013 to 2015, gratuity and leave encashment has been paid to Mr. Z.H. Qureshi in August, 2013, Mr. Shahab Siddiqui in October, 2013 and Mr.A.A. Suharwardi in December, 2014. It is also averred in this paragraph that Mr. Z.H. Qureshi has been granted benefit of MACP in June, 2015. In the corresponding paragraph No.12 of the counter affidavit of respondentUniversity, it is simply stated that the averments made in this paragraph are not fully correct and that the liability of State Resource Centre cannot be borne by respondent-University.

(3.) At the final hearing of this petition, learned senior counsel for petitioner has produced the Guidelines for Management, Planning and Operation of the State Resource Centres issued by National Literacy Mission, Ministry of Human Resource Development, which envisages creation of a Development Fund of the Resource Centres generated from the fees collected from the trainees, donations, consultancy fees for the programmes conducted by Resource Centres on behalf of other departments/agencies and any income other than grants received from the Government of India. Guideline No.8 of the aforesaid Guidelines clearly provides that the amount of the Development Fund shall be spent broadly on the following items: -