Raj ani Sharm a - Pet it ioner v. Vice Chancellor Chairm an, Facult y Appoint m ent Com m it t ee)

Judgment

( p e r H o n ’ b l e Ju s t i ce Sr i M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i ) - - Respondent s

1. By m eans of t his writ pet it ion, pet it ioner has sought t he following reliefs:

I ssue a writ order or direct ion in t he nat ure of “ I . cert iorari quashing t he office let t ers dat ed 16.07.2018 and 11.09.2018 issued by Direct or and t he decision as t aken by t he alleged BOG in it s first m eet ing held on 17 t h March 2018. I ssue a writ order or direct ion in t he nat ure of I I . m andam us direct ing t o t he respondent s t o t reat t he pet it ioner t o be a perm anent em ployee of t he inst it ut e on t he post of Assist ant Professor in t he Depart m ent of Hum anit ies & Applied Sciences, THDC by virt ue of order of appoint m ent dat ed 30.09.2015 and grant benefit s including difference of arrear of salary”

2. Pet it ioner was appoint ed on cont ract as Assist ant Professor ( English) in THDC I nst it ut e of Hydropower Engineering and Technology ( hereinaft er referred t o as ‘THDC I nst it ut e’) vide order dat ed 25.08.2011. I n t he m ont h of August , 2014, services of t he pet it ioner, wit h ot her t eachers, was discont inued; t hey filed Writ Pet it ion ( S/ B) No. 193 of 2014, which was decided in 1 favour of t he t eachers serving including t he pet it ioner. I nst it ut e, in THDC

3. I n t erm s of j udgm ent passed by coordinat e Bench in Writ Pet it ion ( S/ B) No. 193 of 2014, Direct or of t he I nst it ut e issued a let t er t o pet it ioner on 23.09.2016, asking her t o j oin dut ies in t he I nst it ut e in t erm s of j udgm ent , which shall however be subj ect t o out com e of t he Special Leave Pet it ion filed before t he Hon’ble Suprem e Court .

4. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel appearing for THDC I nst it ut e subm it s t hat upon pet it ioner ’s rej oining in t he I nst it ut e, she was paid salary for t he period bet ween 15.07.2015 t o 22.09.2016, during which she rem ained out of em ploym ent , in view of t he undert aking given by her t hat she was not gainfully em ployed during t hat period.

5. I t was subsequent ly revealed t hat pet it ioner served in a privat e engineering college, nam ely, I MS Engineering College at Ghaziabad, where she was appoint ed as Assist ant Professor on consolidat ed salary of Rs. 50,000/ - per m ont h w.e.f. 30.09.2015 and she served in t he said college t ill resum pt ion of dut ies in THDC I nst it ut e in t erm s of j udgm ent of t his Court .

6. When aforesaid fact cam e t o t he not ice of Com pet ent Aut horit y, a show cause not ice was issued t o pet it ioner on 16.06.2017, asking her t o show cause as t o why punit ive act ion be not t aken against her for subm it t ing false affidavit for wit hdrawing governm ent m oney. 2

7. Pet it ioner replied vide let t er dat ed 27.06.2017 wherein she adm it t ed t hat she served I MS Engineering College, Ghaizabad during t he period she was not serving in THDC I nst it ut e, however she cont ended t hat I MS Engineering College is not a Governm ent College, t herefore she is not liable t o refund t he am ount which she received as arrears of salary.

8. The reply given by pet it ioner was considered by Board of Governors of THDC I nst it ut e, who did not find t he reply sat isfact ory and approved recovery of t he am ount paid t o pet it ioner wit h 18 percent int erest . Direct or of t he I nst it ut ion issued a com m unicat ion t o pet it ioner on 16.07.2018, whereby she was asked t o deposit t he am ount wit h int erest , wit hin 15 days.

9. Aft er hearing learned counsel for t he respondent and upon perusal of t he record, we are of t he considered opinion t hat t he am ount , which pet it ioner received as arrears of salary for t he period bet ween

15.07.2015 t o 22.09.2016, aft er subm it t ing affidavit t hat she was not gainfully em ployed elsewhere during said period, is liable t o be recovered from her.

10. No one can be perm it t ed t o draw salary for t he sam e period from t wo I nst it ut ions, m ore so when THDC I nst it ut e had required t he pet it ioner t o disclose as t o whet her she was serving anywhere else aft er her disengagem ent from THDC I nst it ut e.

11. Since pet it ioner obt ained a benefit by suppression fact s, t herefore, t he im pugned order dat ed 3 16.07.2018, so far it provides for recovery of t he am ount paid as arrears of salary, does not warrant any int erference. However, we find t hat t he int erest at 18 percent , which pet it ioner is m ade liable t o pay on t he am ount received by her, as arrears, is excessive. We t herefore provide t hat pet it ioner would be liable t o pay sim ple int erest at t he rat e of 6 percent per annum .

12. Writ pet it ion is disposed of in aforesaid t erm s. _______________________________ M A N OJ K UM A R TI W A RI , J. ____________________________ SUBH A SH UPA D H YA Y, J. Dt : 17 t h June, 2025 Mahinder/ - MAHIN DER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842b c6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a1 8b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392 BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1B C9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH 4