SHALINI SHARMA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner'S representation seeking pay protection was made to respondent-College on 10th July, 2017 and vide communication of 21st/24th November, 2017, (Annexure-O), respondent-College has forwarded petitioner's request for grant of pay protection to the respondent University and the said request has been declined by the respondent University by order of 15th January, 2018 (Annexure-P) while reiterating its earlier decision of 9th June, 2017 (Annexure-M) wherein it has been simply observed that petitioner's request for pay protection of the period from September, 1998 to August, 2010 cannot be considered as she had worked on the post of assistant professor in department of computer science on temporary basis.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that similarly placed persons i.e. Dr. Monika and Veenu have been already granted pay protection and at the time of selection of petitioner, it was made clear that petitioner will be given the pay protection. To submit so, attention of this Court is drawn to the Minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee on 22nd December, 2008 (Annexure-F) .

(3.) Consequent upon passing order of 15th January, 2018, respondentSchool has initiated the process to recover the extra/excess amount paid to petitioner on account of pay protection already granted and as per communication of 13th April, 2018 (Annexure-S), respondent-School has sought to recover the excess payment made to petitioner on account of the pay protection, in 36 equal instalments and the entire amount of arrears of VIIth pay commission implementation is also sought to be adjusted against the outstanding amount. So, stay of the impugned recovery is sought by petitioner's counsel on the ground that the impugned order is not a speaking order and since petitioners had been already granted pay protection at the time of her selection, therefore, the impugned recovery is wholly un-justified.