AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner No. 1 of this writ petition is said to be an Association of the teachers working with the respondent No. 2 North Eastern Hill
University [''NEHU''/''the University''] that has been established under the provisions of North-Eastern Hill University Act, 1973 [''the Act of
1973'']. The other petitioners are said to be the members of the petitioner No. 1 Association.
The grievance stated in this writ petition, in essence, is against withdrawal of Hill Area Special Allowance [''HASA''] which, according to the
averments in the petition, was being received by the teachers and staff of NEHU since the year 1995 pursuant to an Ordinance (OE-10),
promulgated under the Act of 1973. It is alleged that though several attempts were made in the past to discontinue with HASA but the concerned
authorities of the University did not agree on these propositions and the respondent No.4-Vice Chancellor had justified the applicability of HASA
in his communications to the respondent No.1 but later on, he attempted to act against the real state of affairs in order to please the respondent
No. 1 while by-passing the Act of 1973 and the Statutes of NEHU; and he went to the extent of manipulating the resolution of the Executive
Council.
This petition was initially considered by a coordinate Bench on 30.06.2017 and, while issuing notices to the respondents, the resolution of the
Executive Council dated 14.06.2017 and the notification dated 14.06.2017 were stayed; and the respondents were directed to continue to pay
HASA to the teaching and non-teaching staff of NEHU until the next date fixed in this matter. Thereafter, on 19.07.2017, an application seeking
vacation of the interim order was filed on behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 4. However, on 21.07.2017, the coordinate Bench that had earlier
passed the interim order, directed this matter to be placed before another Bench.
The petitioners have also filed a contempt case bearing number 16 of 2017 alleging wilful disobedience of the interim order dated 30.06.2017
by the respondent NEHU. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it was considered appropriate to consider the main matter on merits so
as to finally decide the petition itself.
Before final hearing, by an order dated 29.08.2017, the prayer of the petitioners to join the Hon''ble Visitor as a party-respondent was declined
and the application of other members of the petitioner Association for impleadment was also declined. It was also noticed that in the writ petition,
the Academic Council and the Executive Council of NEHU had been impleaded as respondents No. 5 and 6 respectively; and such an
impleadment was also disapproved for the reason that the said respondents No. 5 and 6 are in fact the authorities of the University, as specified in
Sections 18, 20 and 21 of the Act of 1973; and, though the Executive Council and the Academic Council are entrusted with certain powers and
functions under the Act of 1973 and the Statutes thereunder and are composed of various persons involved in the affairs of the University, but
then, these authorities are neither having any independent existence nor are juristic persons so as to be joined as parties in the writ petition. At the
given stage, this Court left the issue of joinder of Vice Chancellor of the University as respondent No. 4 open for consideration later because it was
sought to be suggested that certain allegations are directed personally against the Vice Chancellor.
The relevant factual aspects of the matter could be taken note of, in brief, in the following: According to the petitioners, since after establishment
of NEHU, its employees were coming from all parts of the country and the authorities realized the continuous need to attract and retain the services
of competent employees in NEHU; and ultimately, a new special allowance in the name of Hill Areas Special Allowance was extended to all the
teaching and non-teaching staff of NEHU with promulgation of Ordinance OE-10 w.e.f. 01.01.1995. This Ordinance was duly notified on
13.10.1997 by a notification issued by the Deputy Registrar of the University to that effect read as under:
NORTH-EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY ORDINANCES
OE-10
ON THE HILL AREAS SPECIAL ALLOWANCE TO
TEACHING AND NON-TEACHING STAFF
Under Clauses( j) and (n) of the Sub-section (1) of Section 26 of NEHU Act, 1973
The members of the Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff shall be paid a Hill Areas Special Allowance at the rate of twelve percent
of the basic pay.
The above Hill Areas Special Allowance is deemed to be effective from 1st January 1995 in addition to the pay in the respective
scales and such other allowances as may be sanctioned by the University Grants Commission from time to time.
The petitioners submit that previously, certain attempts were also made to discontinue HASA with the help of other organizations and the PAG
(Audit) Meghalaya questioned the payment of HASA but the matter was duly clarified by the Registrar, NEHU and HASA was continued.
The impugned actions in the present matter had their genesis in a communication dated 03.04.2017, sent by the Deputy Secretary to the
Government of India whereby, the respondent No. 4 Vice Chancellor was conveyed the advice of the Hon''ble President of India, in his capacity
as Visitor of NEHU for discontinuing HASA. The said communication stating the reasons and basis of such advice reads as under:
F.No.08-10/2011-Desk(U) Part-II
Government of India
Ministry of Human Resource Development
Department of Higher Education
Dated 03.04.2017
To,
The Vice Chancellor,
North Eastern Hill University,
Shilling-793001
Subject: Discontinuation of Hill Area Special Allowance (HASA) to the employees of North Eastern Hill University - regarding.
Sir,
I am directed to state that the President of India in his capacity as the Visitor of NEHU has been pleased to advise the VC, NEHU
under the provisions of Section 8(6) of the NEHU Act, 1973 to immediately repeal the Ordinance under which HASA is allowed, so
that HASA is discontinued without further delay keeping in view that it is not permissible as per the extant Rules and Regulations as
observed by all the concerned authorities.
The background of the above decision is given in the following paragraphs:-
(i) On the basis of a resolution passed by University''s Executive Council in Sept.1997 that Hill Area Special Allowance (HASA)
should be paid from January 1995. NEHU began paying HASA at the rate of 12 per cent of basic pay from January 1995 to its
teaching and non-teaching staff.
(ii) Consequent upon the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, NEHU also started paying Special Duty Allowance
(SDA) as recommended by the pay Commission at 12.50% of basic pay to all its employees from 01.09.2008 in addition to HASA.
On noticing the payment of both, HASA and SDA, by NEHU to its employees, MHRD advised NEHU vide letter dated 10.8.2009
to immediately discontinue payment of HASA and to recover the amount already paid, if any, from 1.9.2008. UGC also requested
NEHU vide their letter dated 9.9.2009 for discontinuation of HASA immediately. On receipt of such direction from MHRD/UGC,
Mizoram University and Nagaland University stopped the payment of HASA to its employees.
(iii) The matter of payment of HASA and recovery was also examined by the Integrated Finance Division (IFD) of this Ministry
which advised to stop payment of HASA and recovery of payment made in this regard.
(iv) The Principal Accountant General (Audit), Meghalaya also vide his letter dated 15.12.2011 informed MHRD that it is proposed
to include a Draft Para on inadmissible payment of HASA of Rs.11.14 Crore in respect of NEHU in the report of C&AG for the
year ended 31.03.2011. Audit observed that Mizoram University and Nagaland University who were earlier paying HASA on the
lines of NEHU had discontinued payment of HASA w.e.f. 31.08.2008 after implementation of 6th CPC. However, continued
payment of HASA by NEHU is violation of directions of MHRD/UGC and GFR, Audit observed that there is unauthorised payment
of HASA by NEHU from Sept. 2008 to March 2011 amounted to Rs.11.14 Crore. The Draft Para was sent to NEHU for
settlement vide this Ministry''s letter dated 26.12.2011 followed by several reminders.
(v) The relevant Section of the North-Eastern Hill University (NEHU) Act dealing with the powers of the Visitor of the University i.e.
Section 8 of the NEHU Act, 1973, inter alia, provides that:
(2) The Visitor shall have the right to cause an inspection to be made by such person or persons as he may direct, of the University,
its buildings, laboratories and equipment, and of any College or Institution maintained by the University or admitted to its privileges;
and also of the examinations, teaching and other work conducted or done by the University and to cause an inquiry to be made in like
manner in respect of any matter connected with the administration or finances of the University, Colleges or Institutions.
(6) The Visitor may, if the inspection or inquiry is made in respect of the University or any College or Institution maintained by it,
address the Vice-Chancellor with reference to the result of such inspection or inquiry, and the Vice-Chancellor shall communicate to
the Executive Council the views of the Visitor with such advice as the Visitor may be pleased to offer upon the action to be taken
thereon.
(9) Where the Executive Council or the management does not, within a reasonable time, take action to the satisfaction of the Visitor,
the Visitor may, after considering any explanation furnished or representation made by the Executive Council or management, issue
such directions as he may think fit and the Executive Council or management, as the case may be, shall comply with such directions.
(vi) In view of the above, a Visitorial enquiry on the whole issue of payment of HASA was made in terms of Section 8 of NEHU Act
1973. Vide approval dated 3.9.2015, the Visitor gave the following directions:-
(a) To constitute a committee comprising of the representatives of MHRD, UGC and Department of Expenditure (MoF) to look into
the matter of payment of HASA to its employees by NEHU in the light of DoPT instructions and with the aim to have uniformity
amongst the Central Universities of NEHU regarding payment of pay and allowances to their respective employees. The Committee
should submit its recommendation within two months for the kind perusal of the President.
(b) To conduct a thorough internal enquiry in the matter and sent a report within two months to the Visitor for taking further necessary
action.
(c) To seek legal opinion from Ministry of Law and Justice on Ordinance OE 10.
(vii) Accordingly, under the provisions of section 8(2) of the NEHU Act and with the approval of the Visitor, an enquiry was done by
the Committee constituted for the purpose. The Committee has concluded that payment of HASA to the employees of NEHU after
the acceptance of the 6th Pay Commission''s recommendations is irregular. It is also violative of GFR 209(6)(iv)(a), as it does not
maintain parity with similar categories of employees in other Central Universities of North-Eastern Region.
(viii) Advice of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure was also sought. They have observed that NEHU is a fully
funded Central University and hence its employees cannot be granted higher rates of allowances than admissible to Central
Government employees posted in North Eastern (NE) Region.
(ix) All the agencies concerned with the issue like UGC, IFD Wing of MHRD, C&AG, Ministry of Finance etc. have objected to the
payment of HASA as it violates the provisions of GFR 2005 and other relevant extant rules of GOI. After implementation of the 6th
CPC recommendations, NEHU should have stopped the payment of HASA as was done by Mizoram and Nagaland Universities.
Ministry of Law and Justice has also not objected to the repeal of the Ordinance. HASA is improper and in dissonance with the
GOI''s instructions/GFR and UGC Regulations. The Visitorial enquiry has also concluded that payment of HASA is in violation of the
provisions of GFR 209(6)(iv)(a), as it does not maintain parity with similar categories of employees in other Central Universities of
North-Eastern Region and that the EC of the University should have taken action to stop HASA.
In view of the decision of the President of India, in his capacity as Visitor of NEHU, as stated in Para 1 above, the VC, NEHU is
advised under Section 8(6) of the NEHU Act, 1973, to initiate appropriate action for immediate repealing of the Ordinance under
which HASA is allowed and inform this Ministry of the action taken in this regard at the earliest or latest within a period of one month
from the receipt of this letter, failing which a proposal invoking the Provision as contained in Section 8(9) of the NEHU Act, 1973
shall be submitted before the Visitor.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(D Ramakrishna Rao)
Deputy Secretary to the Government of India
After receipt of the communication aforesaid, the matter was placed before the Academic Council of the respondent-University in its 9th
emergent meeting on 11.04.2017, who resolved, inter alia, to maintain status quo on HASA and to submit a representation in the matter and also
that a delegation may seek meeting with the Hon''ble Visitor. The resolution so adopted by the Academic Council reads as under:-
ITEM NO.6
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
6:6: Service Condition/Financial & Other Benefits
(i) Matter relating to HASA
NO:EEC:9:2017:6:6:(i): The Council considered the letter F.No.08-10/2011-Desk(U) Part-II dated 03.04.2017 from Shri D.
Ramakrishna Rao, Deputy Secretary, MHRD, Government of India relating to discontinuation of Hill Area Special Allowance
(HASA) to the employees of North-Eastern Hill University. The Finance Officer apprised the Academic Council about the
withholding of certain amount of funds on account of payment of HASA to NEHU employees. The matter was thoroughly
deliberated by the members of the Council on the payment of HASA and information received from MHRD and UGC relating to
HASA were shared with the members. The Council RESOLVED to maintain the status quo on HASA. The Council further
RESOLVED that the time limit of one month as given in the aforesaid letter must be adhered to in our response. The Council also
RESOLVED that a request be made to the Hon''ble Visitor that any allocated fund withheld by UGC/MHRD till date on account of
payment of HASA to NEHU employees may kindly be released. The Council further RESOLVED to submit a representation with all
facts and figures on HASA and also RESOLVED that a delegation from the University may also meet the Hon''ble Visitor to apprise
him on the matter relating to HASA. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks from the Chair.
Sd/-
12/4/2017
Dr. J.N. Nayak
Ex-Officio Secretary
Sd/-
12.4.2017
Prof. S.K. Srivastava
Chairman
Thereafter, the matter was also placed in the 46th emergent meeting of the Executive Council of NEHU on this issue relating to HASA, who
resolved that explanation/representation on the facts relating to Ordinance OE-10 pertaining to HASA be submitted to the Hon''ble Visitor. The
resolution so adopted by the Executive Council reads as under:
ITEM NO.6
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:
6:6: Service Condition/Financial & Other Benefits
(i) Matter relating to HASA
NO:EEC:46:2017:6:6:(i): The Council considered the letter F.No.08-10/2011-Desk(U) Part-II dated 03.04.2017 from Shri D.
Ramakrishna Rao, Deputy Secretary, MHRD, Government of India relating to discontinuation of Hill Area Special Allowance
(HASA) to the employees of North-Eastern Hill University. The Finance Officer expressed serious concern over the continuous
withholding of grants by UGC/MHRD to NEHU on account of payment of HASA to the employees of NEHU and its consequential
effect. The Council deliberated thoroughly on the matter.
The Council RESOLVED to submit explanation/representation on the facts relating to Ordinance OE-10 pertaining to Hill Area
Special Allowance to Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff, to the Hon''ble Visitor on the basis of provision as contained in Section 8(9)
of the NEHU Act, 1973. The Council also RESOLVED that the reply with all facts and figures on continuation of HASA should be
sent within the stipulated period. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks from the chair.
Sd/-
12/4/2017
Dr. J.N. Nayak
Ex-Officio Secretary
Sd/-
12.4.2017
Prof. S.K. Srivastava
Chairman
The petitioners took steps and submitted representation for consideration of the Hon''ble Visitor with the prayer that HASA may not be
discontinued. The petitioners would also submit that though requests were made to the Vice Chancellor to forward the representation to the
Hon''ble Visitor but the Vice Chancellor did not take any steps in that regard. However, it is not in dispute that the Vice Chancellor indeed sent the
explanation/representation of the Executive Council to the Secretary to the Hon''ble Visitor on 24.07.2017 that reads as under:
F.No.Conf/Misc/HASA/2015-529
April 27, 2017
To,
The Secretary to the Hon''ble President of India & Hon''ble Visitor, North-Eastern Hill University Rashtrapati Bhavan.
Subject: Explanation/Representation by the Executive Council of the North-Eastern Hill University under Section 8(9) of the NEHU
Act, 1973.
Ref: Letter No.F.08-10/2011-Desk(U) Part-II dated 03.04.2017 from MHRD, Department of Higher Education, GOI regarding
discontinuance of Hill Areas Special Allowance (HASA) to the employees of North-Eastern Hill University.
Respected Madam,
Greetings from the North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong.
With reference to the above mentioned letter and subject, honouring the decision of the Hon''ble President of India in his capacity as
Hon''ble Visitor of NEHU, the matter pertaining to discontinuation of HASA was placed in the 46th Emergent meeting of the
Executive Council held on 12.04.2017. In this Executive Council meeting it was resolved to submit explanation/representation on the
facts relating to Ordinance OE-10 pertaining to HASA to Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff, to the Hon''ble Visitor on the basis of
provisions as contained in Section 8(9) of NEHU Act, 1973, within the stipulated period (Minutes of the 46th Emergent Executive
Council, Section 8(9) of NEHU Act and letter from MHRD dated 3.4.2017 referred above are enclosed as Annexures-I, II & III
respectively).
As per the decision of the 47th Emergent Executive Council (Annexure-IV) held on 25.04.17, I have the honour to state as follows:
Hill Areas Special Allowance (HASA) is being paid to NEHU employees as per the University Ordinance OE-10 as a special
allowance (in addition to all other allowances declared by the Government of India from time to time) with the objective to attract and
retain talents in the University located in the North-East Region. The Ordinance on HASA was promulgated as per Section 26(1) of
NEHU Act, 1973 under Clause (j) & (n) (copy of the Ordinance OE-10 and relevant Section 26(1) of NEHU Act 1973 are
enclosed as Annexures V & VI).
HASA is a specific allowance to NEHU employees and is not a compensatory allowance like SDA which has been extended to all
Central Government employees in the 6th CPC. The salient features of HASA vis-a-vis SDA is illustrated in a tabular form as given
in the Annexure-VII.
Continuation of payment of HASA to employees of NEHU has been reiterated vide the resolutions taken in the 83rd Academic
Council and 9th Emergent Academic Council held on 28.5.2010 & 11.4.2017, respectively (Minutes are enclosed in the Annexures
- VIII & IX). Therefore, in view of the above, we most humbly request the Hon''ble Visitor to kindly reconsider the matter by
allowing the NEHU employees to continue to avail the HASA, in the interest of the institution being the oldest established Central
University in the North-East Region.
Thanking you, With profound regards,
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
27.4.2017
(S.K. Srivastava)
The petitioners have also submitted that apprehending improper representation of the matter by the Vice Chancellor, a representation dated
04.05.2017 was submitted on behalf of the Association to the Hon''ble Visitor stating justification for continuance of HASA. Despite the aforesaid
attempts on the part of the University as also the petitioners, the Hon''ble Visitor did not find the submissions satisfactory and proceeded to issue
directions to the Executive Council, NEHU to take action for repeal of the Ordinance that was allowing HASA. This communication dated
11.05.2017 conveying the directions of the Hon''ble Visitor reads as under:
F.No.08-10/2011-Desk (U) Part-II
Government of India
Ministry of Human Resource Development
Department of Higher Education
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi - 110115
Dated: 11.05.2017
To,
The Vice Chancellor,
North Eastern Hill University,
Shilling-793001.
Subject: Direction of the Visitor regarding discontinuation of HASA to the employees of NEHU, Shillong.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to your letter No.Conf/Misc/HASA/2015-531 dated 27.04.2017 conveying the explanation/representation of
the EC of NEHU on the issue of HASA.
The aforesaid explanation/representation furnished by the EC were submitted before the Visitor. After considering the
explanation/representation, the Visitor did not find the same satisfactory and found that the Ordinance under which continuance of
HASA is allowed must be repealed due to the following reasons:-
(i) Like Special Duty Allowance (SDA), Hill Area Special Allowance (HASA) too is a compensatory allowance and is being given
by the NEHU for the same purpose for which SDA is given and two allowances for the same purpose cannot be allowed as per the
extant Rules.
(ii) As a matter of policy, rate of allowances may be revised and undue allowances may be discontinued and attaching allowances
permanently with the service condition of the employees is not in order.
(iii) The Committee constituted under the provisions of Section 8(2) of the NEHU Act has concluded that payment of HASA to the
employees of NEHU after the acceptance of the 6th Pay Commission''s recommendations is irregular. It is also violative of GFR
209(6)(iv)(a), as it does not maintain parity with similar categories of employees in other Central Universities of North-Eastern
Region.
(iv) Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure has observed that NEHU is a fully funded Central University and hence its
employees cannot be granted higher rates of allowances than admissible to Central Government employees posted in North Eastern
(NE) Region.
(v) UGC, IFD Wing of MHRD and C&AG have objected to the payment of HASA as it violates the provisions of GFR and other
relevant extant Rules of GOI, Ministry of Law and Justice has also not objected to the repeal of the Ordinance.
(vi) After implementation of the 6th CPC recommendations, other CUs of NER like Mizoram and Nagaland Universities have
already stopped the payment of HASA.
Therefore, the Visitor, in exercise of powers conferred on him in terms of Section 8 (9) of the NEHU Act, has been pleased to
give direction to the EC of NEHU to take action for repeal of the Ordinance that allows HASA, with immediate effect. It may be
noted that the EC has to comply with the direction of the Visitor issued under Section 8 (9) of the NEHU Act. A compliance report
on the aforesaid direction of the Visitor may therefore be sent to this Ministry, at the earliest possible, for submitting the same to the
Visitor.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(D Ramakrishna Rao)
Deputy Secretary to the Government of India
The matter took a somewhat disquieting turn after receipt of such a mandate from the Visitor. In view of the directions, an emergent meeting of
the Executive Council was convened on 15.05.2017 wherein, the Executive Council, admittedly resolved that the matter be placed before the
Academic Council. The minutes of this meeting were signed by the Vice Chancellor in his capacity as the Chairman as also by the Ex-Officio
Secretary on 23.05.2017 and read as under:-
MINUTES OF THE FORTY-EIGHT EMERGENT MEETING OF
THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL The 48th
Emergent Meeting of the Executive Council was held on the 15th May, 2017 at 4:00 P.M. in the Committee Room, Administrative
Building, NEHU, Mawkynroh, Shillong. The Chairman welcomed all the members to the 48th Emergent Meeting of the Executive
Council. A list of members who attended the 48th Emergent meeting of the Executive Council is appended as Appendix-I. Intimation
was received from Prof. B. Mishra and Principal, Sohra College expressing their inability to attend the meeting on the 15th May,
2017, due to pre-occupation. At the outset, the Chairman informed and explained to the Members the exigency for convening this
48th Emergent Meeting of the Council to discuss the matter relating to Hill Areas Special Allowance (HASA). Thereafter the
Chairman called the meeting to order.
ITEM NO.6
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
6:6: Service Conditions/Financial & other benefits
(i) Matter relating to Hill Areas Special Allowance
(HASA) NO.EEC:48:2017:6:6:(i): The Chairman informed the Council about the letter F.No.08-10/2011-Desk(U) Part-II dated
11/5/2017 received from the Deputy Secretary, MHRD, Government of India conveying the direction of the Hon''ble Visitor
regarding repeal of the Ordinance that allows HASA with immediate effect to the employees of NEHU in response to the
University''s letter No.Conf/Misc/HASA/2015-531 dated 27/4/17 stating the explanation/representation of the EC of NEHU on this
issue. A copy of the said letter was circulated to all the members. The members discussed thoroughly on the letter. After thorough
deliberations, the Council RESOLVED that the matter be placed before the Academic Council.
The meeting ended with a vote of thanks from the Chair.
Sd/-
23/5/17
Dr. J.N. Nayak
Ex-Officio Secretary
Sd/-
23.5.2017
Prof. S.K. Srivastava
Chairman
It is, however, the case of the petitioners that the respondent Vice Chancellor, misusing his official position and in a malafide manner,
manipulated the minutes of 48th emergent meeting of the Executive Council and unilaterally prepared different nature minutes to his satisfaction,
projecting as if the Executive Council had resolved to accept the directions of the Hon''ble Visitor to take action for repeal of Ordinance that
allows HASA; and such manipulated minutes were sent to the respondent No. 1 while the actual and original minutes were never sent. A copy of
such called manipulative minutes has also been placed on record as Annexure-12 that reads as under:-
MINUTES OF THE FORTY-EIGHT EMERGENT MEETING OF THE
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
The 48th Emergent Meeting of the Executive Council was held on the 15th May, 2017 at 4:00 P.M. in the Committee Room,
Administrative Building, NEHU, Mawkynroh, Shillong.
ITEM NO.6
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
6:6: Service Conditions/Financial & other benefits
(i) Matter relating to Hill Areas Special Allowance (HASA)
NO.EEC:48:2017:6:6:(i): The Chairman informed the Council about the letter F.No.08-10/2011-Desk(U) Part-II dated 11/5/2017
received from the Deputy Secretary, MHRD, Government of India conveying the direction of the Hon''ble Visitor regarding
discontinuation of HASA to the employees of NEHU a response to the University''s letter No.Conf/Misc/HASA/2015-531 dated
27/4/17 stating the explanation/representation of the EC of NEHU on the issue of HASA. A copy of the said letter was circulated to
all the members. The members discussed thoroughly on the letter. After thorough deliberations, the Council RESOLVED to humbly
accept the direction of the Hon''ble Visitor vide letter F.No.08-10/2011-Desk(U) Part-II dated 11/5/2017 to the EC of NEHU to
take action for repeal of Ordinance that allows HASA. The Council further RESOLVED that the matter be placed before the
Academic Council.
The meeting ended with a vote of thanks from the Chair.
Sd/-
16/5/17
Dr. J.N. Nayak
Ex-Officio Secretary
Sd/-
16.5.2017
Prof. S.K. Srivastava
Chairman
It is noticed that 10th emergent meeting of Academic Council was held on 05.06.2017 wherein, the Academic Council again, resolved to
maintain status quo of HASA though the Chairman/Vice Chancellor emphasized to follow the directions of the Visitor. The minutes of the 10th
emergent meeting of the Academic Council read as under:-
MINUTES OF THE 10TH EMERGENT ACADEMIC COUNCIL
HELD ON 5TH JUNE, 2017
The 10th Meeting of the Emergent Academic Council was held on the 5th June, 2017 at 10:30am in the Auditorium, Old Guest
House, Permanent Campus, NEHU, Mawkynroh, Shillong. The Chairman welcomed all the members to the 10th meeting of the
Emergent Academic Council. A list of members who attended the 10th meeting of the Emergent Academic Council is appended as
Appendix-I. A list of members expressing their inability to attend the meeting due to pre-occupation is appended as Appendix-II. A
the outset, the Chairman informed and explained to the Members of the Council the importance and urgency of convening this 10th
Emergent Meeting of the Academic Council for placing the agenda - Matter relating to HASA. The Chairman called the meeting to
order.
ITEM NO.6
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
6:6: Service Conditions/Financial & other benefits
(i) Matter relating to HASA
NO.EAC:10:2017:6:6:(i): The Council considered the letter F.No.08-10/2011-Desk(U) Part-II dated 11.05.2017 from Shri D.
Ramakrishna Rao, Deputy Secretary, MHRD, Government of India relating to the Direction of the Visitor regarding discontinuation
of Hill Area Special Allowance (HASA) to the employees of NEHU, Shillong. The Visitor, in exercise of powers conferred on him in
terms of Section 8(9) of the NEHU Act has directed to take action for repeal of the Ordinance OE-10 that allows HASA with
immediate effect. The matter was initially placed in the 48th Emergent Executive Council held on 15.05.2017 and confirmed in the
167th Executive Council held on 23.05.2017, wherein it was resolved to place the matter before the Academic Council. The matter
was discussed threadbare and during the discussion, the Chairman of the Academic Council repeatedly emphasized for following the
direction of the Hon''ble Visitor on the issue.
After thorough deliberation, the Council RESOLVED to maintain status quo on HASA. However, notes of dissent was submitted by
Prof. K.B. Das, Visitor''s Nominee and Prof. G. Singaiah, Pro Vice-Chancellor, NEHU, Tura. The meeting ended with a vote of
thanks from the Chair.
Sd/-
5/6/17
Dr. J.N. Nayak
Ex-Officio Secretary
Sd/-
5.6.2017
Prof. S.K. Srivastava
Chairman
When the minutes of 48th and 49th emergent meetings of the Executive Council and those of 10th emergent meeting of the Academic Council
were placed before the Hon''ble Visitor, the resolutions were taken exception of and this time, the directions of the Visitor were conveyed to the
Vice Chancellor to take suitable action as per statute to 2(B)(2) of the University for compliance of the directions. The said communication dated
12.06.2017 reads as under:-
F.No.8-10/2011-Desk (U) Part-II
Government of India
Ministry of Human Resources Development Department of Higher Education
*****
New Delhi, dated the 12th June, 2017
To,
The Vice-Chancellor,
North Eastern Hill University,
Shillong-793001.
Sub: Discontinuation of Hill Area Special Allowance (HASA) to the employees of North Eastern Hill University - regarding.
Sir,
Please refer to letter F.No.Conf/Misc/HASA/2016dated 6.6.2017, received through e-mail dated 6.6.2017 from Registrar, NEHU,
enclosing the Minutes of the 48th Emergent Executive Council, 10th Emergent Academic Council and 49th Emergent Executive
Council meetings for information of the Ministry.
The minutes of the above-said meetings have been gone through and following observations are made:
(i) Vide MHRD''s letter of even number dated 11.5.2017, it was conveyed that the explanation/representation furnished by the EC
were not found satisfactory by the Visitor for the reasons mentioned therein.
(ii) That the Visitor, in exercise of powers conferred on him in terms of Section 8(9) of the NEHU Act, 1973 was pleased to give
direction to the EC of NEHU to take action for repeal of the Ordinance that allows HASA with immediate effect.
(iii) It was also conveyed that the EC has to comply with the direction of the Visitor issued under Section 8(9) of the NEHU Act.
University was advised to submit a compliance report for submitting the same to the Visitor.
(iv) That in the minutes of the EC meeting held on 15.5.2017, it is clearly mentioned that ""After thorough deliberations in its emergent
meeting held on 15.5.2017, the Council RESOLVED to humbly accept the direction of the Hon''ble Visitor vide letter F.No.08-
10/2011 Desk (U) Part II dated 11.5.2017 to the EC of NEHU to take action for repeal of Ordinance that allows HASA"".
(v) That when it was resolved by the EC in its meeting held on 15.5.2017 to accept the directions of the Visitor, there was no
statutory requirement to place the matter before the Academic Council as the EC is the principal executive body of the University.
(vi) Further, when the EC resolved to accept the directions of the Visitor, the action on the part of the University to convene another
emergent meeting subsequently to consider the same matter would amount to circumventing the directions of the Visitor.
(vii) That the decision of the EC, taken in its meeting held on 5.6.2017, not to repeal Ordinance on HASA is not only illegal but also
amounts to wilful disobedience of the directions of the Visitor issued under the relevant provisions of the Act of the University. As
bare reading of the Act would reveal that the said directions of the Visitor were binding in nature and, therefore, the said decision of
the EC clearly violates the statutory provisions of the NEHU Act. In other words, the EC had no other option but to comply with the
direction of the Visitor.
That in the light of the above observations, the Government of India adivses the Vice-Chancellor, being the principal executive and
academic officer of the University, to take urgent suitable action as per Statue 2 (B) (2) of the University for compliance of the
directions of the Hon''ble Visitor of the University by issuing notification for implementation of the decision of the EC for repealing the
said Ordinance on HASA w.e.f. 15.5.2017 i.e. the date on which the directions of the Visitor were accepted by the EC in its
meeting. Failure to comply with the said directions of the Visitor and continued payment of HASA would amount to intentional
misappropriation of Government funds and the person(s) who sanctions the HASA and who receive the same shall be solely
responsible/accountable for the same.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(D Ramakrishna Rao)
Deputy secretary to the Govt. of India
Tel: 23073639
The petitioners have pointed out that in the said communication dated 12.06.2017, the resolution of 10th emergent meeting of the Academic
Council was wrongly construed as the decision of the Executive Council; and in fact, the said communication dated 12.06.2017 was based on the
manipulated minutes of 48th emergent Executive Council meeting. It is also submitted that when the manipulation by the respondent No. 4
surfaced, an attempt was made to cover up such a deliberate act of manipulation by way of clarifications in the newspapers as if it were of
inadvertent mistake. The petitioners submit that they came to know about the resolution of the Executive Council dated 14.06.2017 in its 50th
emergent meeting only by way of a caveat filed on behalf of the University in the Court, but according to them, neither such a resolution was
adopted nor could have been adopted. A notice was, thereafter, served on their behalf on the Vice Chancellor questioning all the actions for
withdrawal of HASA. The petitioners have also placed on record the impugned resolution of the Executive Council dated 14.06.2017 and the
consequential notification of the even date by way of an additional affidavit. The impugned resolution and the notification read as under:-
6:6: Service Conditions/Financial & other benefits
(i) Matter relating to Hill Areas Special Allowance (HASA)
NO:EEC:50:2017:6:6: (i): The Council considered the letter F.No.08-10/2011-Desk(U) Part-II dated 12.06.2017 along with the
earlier letter of even No. dated 11.05.2017 received from the Deputy Secretary, MHRD, Government of India, relating to the
Direction of the Visitor under section 8(9) of NEHU Act, 1973 regarding repeal of the Ordinance OE-10 that allows Hill Areas
Special Allowance (HASA) to the employees of NEHU, Shillong and discontinuance of the payment of HASA. The Council
RESOLVED to take note to comply with the direction of the Visitor regarding repeal of the Ordinance OE-10 on HASA. The Vice-
Chancellor is to issue a notification, to this effect and communicate to MHRD.
Notification
Under the provisions of Section 8(1) of the North-Eastern Hill University Act, 1973, the President of India is the Visitor of the
University. The direction of the Hon''ble Visitor to the University under Section 8(9) of the NEHU Act has been conveyed by the
Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India vide letter No. F.No.08-10/2011-Desk (U) Part-II dated 11.05.2017 to
repeal Ordinance OE-10 that allows HASA to the employees of NEHU and discontinuance of the payment of HASA. Once again,
the direction of the Hon''ble Visitor was communicated to the University through the MHRD vide letter No. F.No.8-10/2011-Desk
(U) Part-II dated 12.06.2017 for repeal of Ordinance OE-10 related to HASA. The matter was again placed to the Executive
Council held on 14.06.2017. The Executive Council deliberated on this and took note of the said letter from the MHRD dated
12.06.2017.
In view of the above, the Ordinance OE-10 that allows HASA to the employees of NEHU stands repealed and payment of HASA is
discontinued with immediate effect.
While opposing this petition, it is inter alia, submitted on behalf of the respondents No. 2 to 4 that on receipt of the letter dated 11.05.2017,
48th emergent meeting of the Executive Council was held and as per the deliberations in the meeting, the draft minutes were prepared, which were
circulated with the letter dated 17.05.2017 and after receipt of the comments, the minutes were modified and were finally approved in 167th
regular meeting of the Executive Council held on 23.05.2017. It is submitted that there had been an inadvertent error while sending the minutes to
the respondent No. 1, but the operative portion of the draft minutes and the final minutes had been identical that the matter be placed before the
Academic Council; in any case, the error was rectified by the University in its communication dated 15.06.2017 to the respondent No. 1. It is
submitted that such forwarding of draft minutes in place of confirmed minutes can never be ascribed to the respondent No.4 as an act of
manipulation and the respondent No. 4 is unnecessarily sought to be targeted in the matter. It is also submitted that the decision of the Visitor was
not based on the minutes of the Executive Council meeting but in fact, the Visitor had reiterated his decision that had already been conveyed on
11.05.2017.
The petitioners have filed a rejoinder wherein, while refuting the suggestions of the respondent-University, it is, inter alia, submitted that till date,
there is no decision of the Academic Council to repeal the Ordinance OE-10 and to stop HASA; and, therefore, the impugned notification
deserves to be set aside.
A counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 1 has also been filed stating, inter alia, that continued payment of HASA by NEHU had invited
the objections from the Principal Accountant General; and as per the findings of the visitorial enquiry, made in terms of Section 8(2) of the Act of
1973, payment of HASA was found irregular and violative of GFR 209(6)(4)(a) and hence, in consultation with the concerned ministry, the
University was advised to repeal the Ordinance OE-10. It is also submitted that NEHU being a fully funded Central University, its employees
cannot be granted higher rates of allowances than admissible to the central employees posted in North-Eastern Region and therefore, the Visitor in
exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 8(9) of the Act of 1973, eventually gave directions to the Executive Council of NEHU to
immediately repeal the Ordinance and such directions were required to be complied with.
The petitioners have filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 and have, inter alia, pointed out that the
respondent No. 4 has continued with his manipulative methods and though the members of the Executive Council have been raising serious
objections as regards the minutes dated 14.06.2017, but no regular meeting of the Executive Council is being convened so as to examine such
minutes.
While putting scathing attack on the actions of the Vice Chancellor and the respondent-University, learned counsel for the petitioners has
strenuously argued that the Vice Chancellor had earlier forwarded the manipulated minutes of the meeting dated 15.05.2017 in place of the correct
minutes and has even not drawn the correct minutes of the Executive Council meeting dated 14.06.2017 and has not placed the same for approval
in the regular meeting. Learned counsel has submitted that specific allegations of manipulation and malafide having been leveled and the Vice
Chancellor having not specifically refuted the same, appropriate action against the Vice Chancellor is called for while drawing adverse inference
against him. Learned counsel has also argued that the Hon''ble Visitor, deriving his powers under Section 8 of the Act of 1973 could not have
ordered repeal of an Ordinance of the University and all such directions are nullity. Learned counsel would further submit that a valid Ordinance of
the University could not have been annulled by the Vice Chancellor in the manner attempted in the present case because no such decision
regarding emoluments of teacher and academic staff could have been taken otherwise than on consideration of the recommendation of the
Academic Council; and the Academic Council having never agreed on withdrawal of HASA, the impugned notification cannot sustain itself. The
learned counsel has also argued that the proposition against the validity of HASA had been wholly baseless because HASA is a special allowance
provided by the statutory provision in Ordinance OE-10 which cannot be equated with any other compensatory allowance like Special Duty
Allowance (SDA). It is submitted that reference to Mizoram and Nagaland University was also not apposite because the said two universities were
not having the Ordinance like OE-10. The learned counsel would also submit that HASA being received by the teachers/employees of the
University since 1995 could not have been withdrawn or annulled without complying with the basic principles of natural justice. The learned
counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions in N.K. Singh v. Union of India and Ors.: (1994) 6 SCC 98, Smt. Naseem Bano v. State of
U.P. and Ors.: AIR 1993 SC 2592, H.L. Trehan and ors v. Union of India and ors: AIR 1989 SC 568, State of Jharkhand and ors v. Ambay
Cements and another: (2005) 1 SCC 368, Workmen v. Reptakos Brett. & Co. Ltd. and another: (1992) 1 SCC 290, State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Singhara Singh and ors: AIR 1964 SC 358.
Per contra, learned ASG appearing for respondent No.1 has emphasized on the submissions that the Visitor has duly exercised his powers to
get an inquiry conducted in the matter and thereafter, has adopted appropriate proceedings by first issuing advice to the University and then, issuing
mandate for want of compliance of his advice. Learned ASG would emphasize on the submission that after issuance of mandate by the Visitor
under Section 8(9) of the Act of 1973, OE-10 had to be repealed and no procedural hassle could have overridden the mandate of the Visitor.
The learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 had submitted that the Vice Chancellor had no mala fide intent in the matter and has duly
carried out the resolutions of the Academic Council and the Executive Council as also the directions of the Visitor. Learned counsel submitted that
once the Visitor had taken the decision and issued the mandate, no power was left with the Vice Chancellor or any other decision-making body of
the University to act contrary to such a mandate. Learned counsel submitted that there being no mala fide on the part of the Vice Chancellor, there
was no necessity of filing any personal affidavit on his behalf in the matter.
Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, this Court is clearly of the view that no case for
interference is made out and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
On the submissions of the parties, the principal questions arising for determination in this case are: (i) as to whether the respondent No.4 Vice
Chancellor had manipulated the minutes of the Executive Council and the decision of the Visitor was based on such manipulated minutes; (ii) as to
whether the Visitor has the power and authority to direct the University to repeal its Ordinance; (iii) as to whether the Ordinance relating to HASA
has not been repealed by the procedure prescribed by law; and (iv) as to whether such discontinuance of HASA to the prejudice of the petitioners
has been in violation of the principles of natural justice?
As regards the first question as to whether the respondent No.4 Vice Chancellor had manipulated the minutes of the Executive Council, on a
comprehension of the facts available on record, this Court is clearly of the view that such allegations have unnecessarily been blown out of
proportion and there appears no reason to accept that the respondent No.4 had indulged in any such act of manipulation. During the course of
submissions, in view of such contentions, this Court had requisitioned the original records relating to the meetings of the Executive Council. It is
noticed from the record that draft resolution of the meeting dated 15.05.2017 was indeed drawn up, suggestive of the resolution to take action for
repeal of Ordinance while also stating that the matter be placed before the Academic Council. However, it appears that after circulation of the
draft, the final minutes were those as drawn and signed on 23.05.2017 whereby, only the matter was resolved to be placed before the Academic
Council. It remains the fact that the earlier draft resolution was forwarded to the respondent No. 1, which suggested as if action would be taken for
repeal of Ordinance although, as on the said given date, no such decision was taken for any action to repeal the Ordinance. The error was
attempted to be rectified by way of the communication dated 15.06.2017. Be that as it may, in the opinion of this Court, nothing much turns upon
this aspect of the matter because the entire action was being taken under the directions of the Visitor and if the Vice Chancellor, in his
understanding had earlier drawn up the draft minutes suggestive of compliance of the directions of the Visitor, such drafting by itself cannot be said
to be malafide.
Forwarding of such draft minutes in place of correct minutes also does not carry much relevance because the decision of the Visitor was not
dependent on any such minutes. In fact, the Visitor had taken his decision even prior to the said meeting of Executive Council dated 15.05.2017. It
is also noticed that the Vice Chancellor in the first place in his communication dated 27.04.2017 referred to the decision taken by the Executive
Council in its 47th Emergent Meeting and made a request to the Hon''ble Visitor to reconsider the matter by allowing the NEHU employees to
continue to avail HASA. In the face of the material available on record, it is difficult to accept the suggestion that the Vice Chancellor had any
otherwise intention in the matter so as to manipulate the minutes of the Executive Council.
The decisions in the cases of N.K. Singh and Naseem Bano (supra) on the requirement of specific counter averments as regards allegation of
mala fide do not make out a case for any finding against the respondent No.4. In the given set of facts and circumstances of the present case, this
Court finds no reason to accept the contention that there had been any manipulation or mala fide intent on the part of the respondent No.4 Vice
Chancellor. It is also not correct a suggestion on the part of the petitioners that the decision of the Visitor was based on the alleged manipulated
minutes. Question No.(i) in this case, is therefore, decided against the petitioners.
Taking up question No.(ii) on the power and authority of the Visitor, it is not in dispute that the impugned notification dated 14.06.2017 had its
genesis in the directions issued by the Hon''ble President of India in his capacity as a Visitor of NEHU. The question definitely arises on the scope
of the powers of the Visitor and his authority to issue directions to the Executive Council to repeal an Ordinance. The rights, powers and authority
of the Visitor are specified in Section 8 of the Act of 1973 that reads as under:-
Visitor 8.
(1) The President of India shall be the Visitor of the University.
(2) The Visitor shall have the right to cause an inspection to be made by such person or persons as he may direct, of the University,
its buildings, laboratories and equipment, and of any College or Institution maintained by the University or admitted to its privileges;
and also of the examinations, teaching and other work conducted or done by the University and to cause an inquiry to be made in like
manner in respect of any matter connected with the administration or finances of the University, Colleges or Institutions.
(3) The Visitor shall, in every case, give notice of his intention to cause an inspection or inquiry to be made:-
(a) to the University, if such inspections or inquiry is to be made in respect of the University, College or Institution maintained by it, or
(b) to the management of the College or Institution, if the inspection or inquiry is to be made in respect of a College or an Institution
admitted to the privileges of the University, and the University or the management, as the case may be, shall have the right to make
such representations to the Visitor, as it may consider necessary.
(4) After considering the representation, if any, made by the University or the management, as the case may be, the Visitor may cause
to be made such inspection or inquiry as is referred to in sub-section (2).
(5) Where any inspection or inquiry has been caused to be made by the Visitor, the University or the management, as the case may
be, shall be entitled to appoint a representative who shall have the right to be present and be heard at such inspection or inquiry.
(6) The Visitor may, if the inspection or inquiry is made in respect of the University or any College or Institution maintained by it,
address the Vice-Chancellor with reference to the result of such inspection or inquiry, and the Vice-Chancellor shall communicate to
the Executive Council the views of the Visitor with such advice as the Visitor may be pleased to offer upon the action to be taken
thereon.
(7) The Visitor may, if the inspection or inquiry is made in respect of any College or institution admitted to the privileges of the
University, address the management concerned through the Vice-Chancellor with reference to the result of such inspection or inquiry,
his views thereon and such advice as he may be pleased to offer upon the action to be taken thereon.
(8) The Executive Council or the management, as the case may be, shall communicate through the Vice- Chancellor to the Visitor
such action, if any, as it is proposed to take or has been taken upon the result of such inspection or inquiry.
(9) Where the Executive Council or the management does not, within a reasonable time, take action to the satisfaction of the Visitor,
the Visitor may, after considering any explanation furnished or representation made by the Executive Council or management, issue
such directions as he may think fit and the Executive Council or management, as the case may be, shall comply with such directions.
(10) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section, the Visitor may, by order in writing, annul any proceeding of the
University which is not in conformity with this Act, the Statutes or Ordinances: Provided that before making any such order, he shall
call upon the University to show cause why such an order should not be made, and if any cause is shown within a reasonable time, he
shall consider the same.
(11) The Visitor shall have such other powers as may be prescribed by the Statutes.
It has been strenuously argued on behalf of the petitioners that under sub-Section (2) of Section 8 ibid., the Visitor could cause an inquiry to be
made in the matters of administration and in the matters of finances which are within the powers and functions of the Executive Council under the
Statute 13 (1) and 13 (2) of the NEHU Statutes; but then, the matters of legislation like those in the form of Ordinances are not covered under
sub-Section (2) of Section 8 of the Act of 1973 and hence, directions of the Visitor to repeal the Ordinance have no statutory validity. This Court
is not inclined to accept these submissions for a variety of reasons.
As noticed, per sub-Section (2) of Section 8 of the Act of 1973 the Visitor has the powers to cause an inquiry to be made in respect of any
matter connected with the administration or finances of the University. Any matter like payment of allowance, which has direct financial
implications, cannot be said to be not connected with the finances of the University. Per sub-Section (6) of Section 8 ibid., the Visitor is entitled to
issue advice and the Vice Chancellor is under obligation to communicate to the Executive Council the views of the Visitor with such advice. The
fact of the matter remains that under sub-Section (9) of Section 8, the Visitor has the power to issue such directions as he may think fit if the
Executive Council does not take action on the advice to his satisfaction; and as per sub-Section (9), the Executive Council has no option but to
comply with the directions, if so issued by the Visitor. On a purposive reading of the scheme of Section 8 of the Act, this Court has no hesitation in
accepting the contentions on behalf of the respondents that the Visitor has the power to issue mandate; and upon issuance of such a mandate, no
option is left with the Executive Council but to comply with the same.
In the present case, the Visitor in the first place got the inquiry conducted as stated in the initial communication dated 03.04.2017. Then, the
process contemplated by sub-Section (6) of Section 8 of the Act of 1973 was also undertaken and the Visitor issued his advice. Thereafter, the
matter was indeed placed in the meetings of the Executive Council as also the Academic Council. The Academic Council resolved to maintain
status quo in the matter and to apprise the Visitor of its proposition to continue with HASA. Similarly, the Executive Council also resolved to
continue with HASA. The Vice Chancellor indeed made the request to the Hon''ble Visitor to continue with HASA pursuant to such resolutions
under his communication dated 27.04.2017. However, the Visitor issued his mandate on 11.05.2017 while not finding the
explanation/representation submitted to him to be satisfactory.
It is also note worthy that in fact, the Visitor has such overriding powers per sub-Section (10) of Section 8 that he could annul any proceeding
of the University. Moreover, it is also noticed that the Visitor has final powers relating to Ordinances too as seen in Statute 41 and has the powers
even to disallow an Ordinance. In the face of such provisions, it is difficult to say that the Ordinance in question was beyond the purview of the
powers of the Visitor. Therefore, question No.(ii) is also answered against the petitioners.
In the given set of facts and circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the attempts on the part of Executive Council or Academic Council to
avoid compliance of the Visitor''s mandate were of no avail. The later resolution of the Academic Council and of the Executive Council, to the
extent not standing in conformity with the decision of Visitor, were not acceptable to the respondent No.1 and thus, by the communication dated
12.06.2017, the Vice Chancellor was rather put under compulsion to take the action as per Statute 2 (B) (2) of the University by issuing
notification for repealing of the Ordinance OE-10 and with further warning that failure to comply with the directions of the Visitor and continued
payment of HASA would amount to intentional misappropriation of Government funds.
In the given set of circumstances, this Court finds no error or illegality on the part of the Vice Chancellor in issuing the notification aforesaid.
Though it is noticed that the resolution of the Executive Council dated 14.06.2017 is yet to be placed for approval and the matter has not been
placed before the Academic Council but in the opinion of this Court, all such steps could hardly be of any avail in the face of the mandate of the
Visitor that remains binding and overriding in view of the scheme of the Act of 1973.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, the suggestion that repeal has not been carried out in the manner prescribed by the statute also does not
make out a case for interference. There is not and there cannot be any quarrel with the basic proposition that when a particular action is required
by the statute to be taken in a particular manner, the prescribed manner is to be followed as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Ambay Cements and Singhara Singh (supra). However, the said decisions do not make out a case for interference because the scheme of statute is
required to be read as a whole; and when there are overriding powers available with the Visitor, the same cannot be ignored. Question No.(iii) is
also answered against the petitioners.
As regards question No.(iv), of course, it appears that by the decision aforesaid the petitioners are being put to financial prejudice inasmuch as
they would be deprived of receiving HASA but it cannot be said that for the purpose of dealing with a particular allowance as earlier allowed over
and above other allowances, any opportunity of hearing was required to be extended to any person. It may be observed that in the advice and
decision of the Visitor, cogent reasons have been stated for not continuing with HASA, particularly after availability of SDA and other benefits
pursuant to the recommendations of 6th Pay Commission. In the opinion of this Court, in the ultimate analysis, where NEHU is a fully funded
University, there is no scope for it to take any decision in the financial matter, particularly that relating to HASA, against the advice and mandate of
the Visitor. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the other decisions refereed by the learned counsel for the petitioners for continuance of
particular allowance, proceeding on their own facts, have no application herein. Question No.(iv) is also answered against the petitioner. In view of
the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere in this matter. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.