COVID-19:Stone hearted person will challenge decision to deduct 1-day salary for PM CARES Fund:HC

New Delhi, Jan 16 () A 'stone hearted person' only will challenge an organisation's decision to deduct one day's salary for a pandemic, the Delhi High Court Tuesday remarked, while dismissing an appeal by a Delhi University professor against deduction of his day's salary for contributing to the PM CARES fund to combat COVID 19.

The high court said keeping in view the severity and the spread of the pandemic, the deduction of one day's salary of the professor, that is Rs 7,500, cannot be said to be contrary to public interest or harsh or inequitable.

"This court is constrained to ask itself a question that wouldn't a 'stone hearted person' only challenge the decision to deduct one day's salary for a pandemic?," asked a bench of Justices Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula.

The high court dismissed an appeal filed by the teacher challenging a single judge's order which had also rejected his plea against deduction of one day salary by the university for contributing to the PM CARES fund to combat COVID-19 pandemic.

The high court said it was of the opinion that the writ petition is not a public interest litigation (PIL) as it has not been filed in the prescribed format of a PIL and further the teachers and staff of Delhi University are neither financially weak nor suppressed to such an extent that they cannot approach this court directly.

The counsel for the professor submitted that the university did not give all its employees adequate notice of such deduction and proceeded to deduct one day's salary even in respect of those employees who had expressed their desire not to make a contribution.

He argued that voluntary contribution cannot be deducted without anyone's consent.

The counsel for the university pointed out that though in the writ petition it has been averred that the petitioner does not have personal interest in the litigation, yet it has not been filed in the prescribed format with necessary undertakings as a PIL.

The bench noted that appeals were made by the UGC chairman and registrar of the varsity in March to voluntarily contribute to support the cause against the COVID-19 pandemic, while the last date for objection was April 2.

"This court takes judicial notice of the fact that we live in the 'internet age' wherein all people are active on social media. Prima facie, it is difficult to believe that the appellant (professor) who himself lives in the Delhi University campus did not know either from his colleagues or staff or university officials or on email or telephone or computer about the appeals issued by the Chairman, UGC or by the Registrar, Delhi University.

"At the highest, the issues of notice and consent are disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition," the high court said in its order.

The bench said it is settled law that a writ petition is not a statutory proceeding and a court is not bound to entertain and allow the same if the cause espoused by the petitioner is contrary to public interest and inequitable – as is the case in the present matter.

The court granted liberty to the teacher to file a suit for recovery. SKV HMP SKV RKS RKS