MUNSHI RAM Vs. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR .B.S.Attri submits that respondent No.3 does not want to file any separate reply and he adopts the reply filed by respondent No.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) A communication bearing No.UHF/Reg/Estt-I/8- 6/05/-27443-45 dated 15.2.2005 from the Registrar Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry Nauni (Solan) addressed to the Associate Director (R&E), Regional Horticultural Research Station, Bajaura, District Kullu (H.P.) is under challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By this communication the Registrar, while referring to an order passed on 17.11.2003 by respondent No.2 as well as a letter dated 27.1.2004 from the said respondent, issued a direction to deduct Rs.500/- per month from November, 2003 from the salary of the petitioner. As is being noticed the aforesaid order dated 17.11.2003 was passed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner as well as some other sons of respondent No.4 on a complaint allegedly made by this respondent with respect to her maintenance. The order dated 17.11.2003 passed by respondent No.2 reads thus:

(3.) TWO issues arise for our consideration in this case. Firstly, did respondent No.2 have any jurisdiction, power or authority to pass an order like the one it did on 17.11.2003 directing the deduction of an amount from the salary of the petitioner and then to follow it up by issuing a direction qua respondent No.1 to actually start the deduction. Secondly, did respondent No.1 itself have no obligation to examine and consider whether any direction or purported direction issued by respondent No.2 had or did not have any force of law and was it of any binding effect upon it and could it therefore act in pursuance of any such direction to the utter prejudice of the petitioner.