Rajat Aneja, Ms. Alka Dwivedi, Mr. Aditya Sharma and Mr. Abhinav Chauhan, Advs v. GURU NANAK INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ORS

.....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Ms. Alka Dwivedi, Mr. Aditya Sharma and Mr. Abhinav Chauhan, Advs. versus GURU NANAK INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Devvrat Yadav and Ms. Sanchari Banerjee, Advs. for AICTE Mr. Inderbir Singh Alag, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abinash Mishra and Mr. Gaurav Kr. Pandey, Advs. for R-1 & 2 + LPA 452/2024 & CM APPL. 3616/2025 SURINDER SINGH & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Ms. Alka Dwivedi, Mr. Aditya Sharma and Mr. Abhinav Chauhan, Advs. Signature Not Verified LPA 386/2024 and other connected matters Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:15.03.2025 12:55:13 versus GURU NANAK INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Devvrat Yadav and Ms. Sanchari Banerjee, Advs. for AICTE Mr. Inderbir Singh Alag, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abinash Mishra and Mr. Gaurav Kr. Pandey, Advs. for R-1 & 2 + LPA 454/2024 & CM APPL. 3613/2025 DARSHAN SINGH & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Ms. Alka Dwivedi, Mr. Aditya Sharma and Mr. Abhinav Chauhan, Advs. versus GURU NANAK INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Devvrat Yadav and Ms. Sanchari Banerjee, Advs. for AICTE Mr. Inderbir Singh Alag, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abinash Mishra and Mr. Gaurav Kr. Pandey, Advs. for R-1 & 2 + LPA 455/2024 BALBIR SINGH & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Ms. Alka Dwivedi, Mr. Aditya Sharma and Mr. Abhinav Chauhan, Advs. versus GURU HARGOBIND INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Devvrat Yadav and Ms. Sanchari Banerjee, Advs. for AICTE Signature Not Verified LPA 386/2024 and other connected matters Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:15.03.2025 12:55:13 Mr. Inderbir Singh Alag, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abinash Mishra and Mr. Gaurav Kr. Pandey, Advs. for R-1 & 2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL % JUDGMENT (ORAL)

28.02.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. LPA 386/2024, LPA 451/2024, LPA 448/2024, LPA 450/2024, LPA 452/2024, LPA 454/2024 & LPA 455/2024

1. These seven Letters Patent Appeals arise out of a judgment dated 15 March 2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in five writ petitions. Across these five writ petitions, there are basically two categories of disputes which have been raised by the appellants, as the petitioners in the writ petitions, against the respondent-Institute, an Institute run by, and under the aegis of, the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee1. One pertains to the appellants’ right to the benefit of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission2. The second pertains to the legality, or otherwise, of the decision of the respondent to lay off the appellants.

2. The challenge to lay off is contained in WP (C) 3854/2020 and WP (C) 4058/2020 whereas the remaining writ petitions are limited to the claim with respect to the benefit of the 6th CPC recommendations. 1 DSGMC Signature Not Verified LPA 386/2024 and other connected matters Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:15.03.2025 12:55:13

3. The petitioners were employees of colleges functioning under the aegis of the DSGMC. Aggrieved that they had not been paid their salaries in accordance with the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission3, to which they claimed to be entitled, and by the fact that orders of temporary lay-off had been issued against them, the petitioners instituted the writ petitions, from which the present appeals emanate, before a learned Single Judge of this Court. As already noted, the relief against lay-off is restricted to WP (C) 3854/2020 and WP (C) 4058/2020, whereas the remaining writ petitions only seek relief with respect to payment of salaries.

4. The learned Single Judge has held, in the impugned judgment, that, as the appellants have an equally efficacious alternate remedy available to them under Section 32(d)4 of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 19715, the writ petitions did not deserve to be entertained and has, therefore, relegated the appellants to the said remedy.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants are before this Court. We have heard Mr. Aneja, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Alag, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents instructed by Mr. 2 “the 6th CPC” hereinafter 3 “6th CPC” hereinafter 4 32. also have jurisdiction in respect of the following matters, namely:— Jurisdiction of District Court in other matters. – The Court of the District Judge in Delhi shall ***** (c) Petitions regarding complaints, irregularities, breach of trust, mismanagement in any Gurdwara, educational or other institutions against any member, office-bearer or officer or other employee of the Committee. (d) including past employees. (e) of the objections raised in, any annual report of the auditors of the Committee. Petitions arising out of any type of disputes between the Committee and its employees Applications regarding failure of publication of, or non-implementation or non-clearance Signature Not Verified LPA 386/2024 and other connected matters Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:15.03.2025 12:55:13 Abinash Mishra, learned Counsel.

6. Mr. Mishra has also advanced independent submissions.

7. Mr. Aneja submits that the learned Single Judge ought to have entertained the writ petitions especially as, during the pendency of the writ petitions, various interim orders restraining the respondents from effecting recoveries from the appellants, directing payment of salaries to the appellants, etc. had been passed. On 29 June 2020, he points out that, in WP (C) 3854/2020 and WP (C) 4058/2020, this Court had also restrained the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioners. This restraint was thereafter extended to the other writ petitions as well. In these circumstances, and keeping in mind the fact that the writ petitions had been pending for quite some time, Mr. Aneja submits that the learned Single Judge was not justified in relegating the petitioners to the remedy available under Section 32 (d) of the DSG Act. He also points out that this Court has exercised jurisdiction in similar matters in Shambhu Nath v Directorate of Education6 and Surjit Singh Saini v Guru Teg Bahadur Institute of Technology7.

8. Mr. Aneja submits that there was no factual dispute involved in the present case, as would bar entertaining the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. All that was to be decided was the entitlement of the appellants to the benefit of the 6th CPC, 5 “DSG Act” hereinafter 6 2013 SCC OnLine Del 938 7 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2917 Signature Not Verified LPA 386/2024 and other connected matters Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:15.03.2025 12:55:13 which could easily have been adjudicated in writ proceedings. He has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Janet Jeyapaul v SRM University8 and Whirlpool Corporation v Registrar of Trade Marks9. From Whirlpool Corporation, Mr. Aneja particularly cites para 15, which reads thus: “15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.”

9. Responding to Mr. Aneja’s submissions, Mr. Inderbir Singh Alag, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, submits that no equities can be pleaded by the appellants as, from the very outset – indeed, from the very first order passed in the writ petitions – the respondents had objected to this Court entertaining the writ petitions in view of the availability of an equally efficacious alternate remedy under Section 32 (d) of DSG Act. If, therefore, the appellants persisted in continuing with their writ petitions, they did so at their own peril, shouldering the risk of the petitions being – as they were ultimately were – rejected on the ground of availability of an equally efficacious alternate remedy.