Mamta And Others vs Asha Kadian, Vice Chancellor, B.P.S. Mahila Vishwavidyalaya, Sonepat And Another

Avneesh Jhingan, J

The present contempt petition has been filed pleading that order dated 04.10.2013 passed by this Court in CWP No.2372 of 2011 has intentionally

been disobeyed. The operational part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The order annexure P-7 prescribing Rs.300/- per hour subject to maximum of Rs.15000/- qua the

petitioners is declared to be illegal, unreasonable and discriminatory. A direction is issued to the respondents to grant the petitioners remuneration at

the rate of Rs.1000/-per lecture subject to a maximum of Rs.25000/-per month w.e.f. the date of their appointment without prejudice to other legal

rights of the petitioners or the respondents. The petitioners will be paid the arrears within a period of three months by respondent No.1 University with

liberty to claim the additional burden from any of the State authorities liable to provide financial assistance/ grant.â€​

Learned counsel for the respondents has filed an affidavit alongwith Annexure R-5 stating that order has been complied with and requisite payments

have been made to the petitioners, same is taken on record. Copy of the same has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have moved a representation dated 17.05.2019 raising grievance that the amount

calculated by the respondents is not in accordance with the order dated 04.10.2013 passed by the High Court.

There is factual dispute being raised with regard to calculation of the amount.

Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that representation would be decided in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to

the petitioners.

In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioners shall appear before respondent No.2 on 05.08.2019 for decision

of the representation.

No further interference is called for in the contempt petition. The rule issued against respondent is discharged. There is no doubt that the respondents

shall decide the representation filed by the petitioners, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.