District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

Suspension Not Effective Without Vice-Chancellor’s Approval; Recovery of Overpaid Salary Set Aside: Delhi HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court emphasized that a faculty member’s suspension from a university position is not valid without the express approval of the Vice-Chancellor. The Court further clarified the illegality of recovering overpaid salary when such suspension is not formally in effect.

The case involved Dr. Amit Kumar, an Assistant Professor at Bharati College, University of Delhi. Following allegations of sexual harassment, he was placed on forced leave, leading to a compulsory retirement. An audit revealed an overpayment of Rs. 6,42,131 in salary, which the college sought to recover. The primary issues addressed were the legality of this recovery and the validity of Kumar’s suspension and entitlements.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh examined the procedural aspects of Kumar’s suspension. The Court noted that while the Governing Body recommended the suspension, it lacked formal approval from the Vice-Chancellor at the time of the audit and recovery order. This lack of approval rendered the suspension and subsequent recovery of overpaid salary legally untenable.

Regarding salary and increments, the Court established that Kumar had duly received all his increments until his forced leave commenced in February 2018. Under UGC guidelines, entitlements like travel allowance or additional increments are not applicable during leave or suspension.

The Delhi High Court ruled that the order for recovery of the overpaid salary amounting to Rs. 6,42,131 was unjustified, as the suspension was not in effect at the time of payment. However, the Court denied the petitioner’s claim for additional increments.

Date of Decision: February 13, 2023

Dr. Amit Kumar vs Bharati College

Latest Legal News