REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Prashant Mehta Appellant

V/S

National Law University Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, in these writ petitions, have essentially voiced their grievances against decision dated 27 th June, 2016 of the respondent National Law University, Jodhpur (for short, 'NLU') besides claiming other consequential/ancillary reliefs. In order to seek complete redressal of their afflictions, the petitioners have also felt necessity to challenge vires of the University Service Regulations, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'Service Regulations'), and therefore, at their behest, Regulations 5 and 6 of the Regulations and amended/inserted Regulations 37 and 38 are questioned in the petitions. That apart, validity of Regulation 2(1) (d) of the Provident Fund Regulations (promulgated by NLU under Section 22 of the Schedule appended to National Law University Act, 1999) (for short, 'PF Regulations') too is assailed.

(2.) The ritualistic factual matrix, common in all these petitions, unfurls that initial appointment of all the three petitioners pursuant to selection was on contract basis. Petitioner Dr. Manmeeta having qualification of Ph.D. (Physics) to her credit was appointed as Assistant Lecturer in year 2001. Petitioner Dr. Anjana Vyas, having qualification of Ph.D. (Zoology) was initially appointed as Lab Assistant in year 2003 but later on promoted as Teaching Assistant in the year 2005 and thereafter as Assistant Lecturer in the year 2006. Third petitioner Dr. Prashant Mehta with qualification of Ph.D. (Chemistry) joined as Assistant Lecturer in the year 2003. Since inception of their service journey, as per all the petitioners, entrusted duties were discharged by them with utmost satisfaction. With a view to highlight their credentials, it is also pleaded in the petitions that petitioner Dr. Manmeeta earned advancement of service career w.e.f. 11 th June, 2010 as Associate Professor to be fixed in higher pay scale with other admissible allowances. Likewise, for petitioner Dr. Anjana Vyas and petitioner Dr. Prashant Mehta this aspect is projected in their petitions w.e.f. 17.05.2008 and 27.07.2008 respectively.

(3.) Overall, the facts narrated in all the petitions depict longevity of writ petitioners' service tenure and excellence in performance of their duties, as perceived/acknowledged by the NLU. Petitioner Dr. Prashant Mehta in the writ petition has also alleged discrimination in the matter of career advancement and conferment of higher status vis-a-vis other members of teaching staff. Ventilating grievances against treating him contractual employee, petitioner Dr. Mehta has castigated NLU for meeting out unfair treatment. Almost identical insinuations in this behalf find mention in the writ petition of Dr. Anjana Vyas. However, Dr. Manmeeta, in the writ petition, while showing her annoyance against status of a contractual employee, has otherwise also espoused cause for grant of desired reliefs.

Click here to view full judgment.

PRASHANT MEHTA Vs. NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address