MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand 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

Similar News