AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:
“I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the office letters dated 16.07.2018 and 11.09.2018 issued by Director and the decision as taken by the alleged BOG in its first meeting held on 17th March 2018.
II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to treat the petitioner to be a permanent employee of the institute on the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Humanities & Applied Sciences, THDC by virtue of order of appointment dated 30.09.2015 and grant benefits including difference of arrear of salary”
Petitioner was appointed on contract as Assistant Professor (English) in THDC Institute of Hydropower Engineering and Technology (hereinafter referred to as ‘THDC Institute’) vide order dated 25.08.2011. In the month of August, 2014, services of the petitioner, with other teachers, was discontinued; they filed Writ Petition (S/B) No. 193 of 2014, which was decided in favour of the teachers serving in THDC Institute, including the petitioner.
In terms of judgment passed by coordinate Bench in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 193 of 2014, Director of the Institute issued a letter to petitioner on 23.09.2016, asking her to join duties in the Institute in terms of judgment, which shall however be subject to outcome of the Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel appearing for THDC Institute submits that upon petitioner’s rejoining in the Institute, she was paid salary for the period between 15.07.2015 to 22.09.2016, during which she remained out of employment, in view of the undertaking given by her that she was not gainfully employed during that period.
It was subsequently revealed that petitioner served in a private engineering college, namely, IMS Engineering College at Ghaziabad, where she was appointed as Assistant Professor on consolidated salary of Rs. 50,000/- per month w.e.f. 30.09.2015 and she served in the said college till resumption of duties in THDC Institute in terms of judgment of this Court.
When aforesaid fact came to the notice of Competent Authority, a show cause notice was issued to petitioner on 16.06.2017, asking her to show cause as to why punitive action be not taken against her for submitting false affidavit for withdrawing government money.
Petitioner replied vide letter dated 27.06.2017 wherein she admitted that she served in IMS Engineering College, Ghaizabad during the period she was not serving in THDC Institute, however she contended that IMS Engineering College is not a Government College, therefore she is not liable to refund the amount which she received as arrears of salary.
The reply given by petitioner was considered by Board of Governors of THDC Institute, who did not find the reply satisfactory and approved recovery of the amount paid to petitioner with 18 percent interest. Director of the Institution issued a communication to petitioner on 16.07.2018, whereby she was asked to deposit the amount with interest, within 15 days.
After hearing learned counsel for the respondent and upon perusal of the record, we are of the considered opinion that the amount, which petitioner received as arrears of salary for the period between
07.2015 to 22.09.2016, after submitting affidavit that she was not gainfully employed elsewhere during said period, is liable to be recovered from her.
No one can be permitted to draw salary for the same period from two Institutions, more so when THDC Institute had required the petitioner to disclose as to whether she was serving anywhere else after her disengagement from THDC Institute.
Since petitioner obtained a benefit by suppression of facts, therefore, the impugned order dated 16.07.2018, so far it provides for recovery of the amount paid as arrears of salary, does not warrant any interference. However, we find that the interest at 18 percent, which petitioner is made liable to pay on the amount received by her, as arrears, is excessive. We therefore provide that petitioner would be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum.
Writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.