Case title:
Prof. Sabiha Hussain Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia and Ors
Date of Order:
06/07/2022
Bench:
Hon’ble Chief Justice and Justice Subramonium Prasad
Parties:
Prof. Sabiha Hussain – Petitioner
Jamia Millia Islamia and Ors – Respondent
Subject
The Delhi High Court rejected Jamia Millia Islamia's request for guidance from the University Grants Commission regarding the disbursement for the Sarojini Naidu Centre for Women's Studies, describing it as an apparent effort to get around its earlier directive requiring the university to pay Professor (Director) Sabiha Hussain's outstanding debts after she filed a suit with the court seeking her regular compensation as mentioned in the advertisement.
Facts
- In the Year 2000 the establishment of the Sarojini Naidu Women’s Studies Centre was approved by the University Grants Commission and the petitioner Prof Sabiha Hussain applied for the post of Director of the above centre pursuant to an advertisement released by the University on July 12, 2016, and she was selected for the position.
- It was ordered by the UGC that all the incumbent teaching staff of the university should be included under the Regular Establishment Budget in the letter dated June 25 2019, the petitioner being one amongst them.
- This petition was filed as an appeal to the High Court to issue appropriate writs directing the UGC to grant the regularized income of Professor Sabiha Hussain.
Contentions of the Petitioner
- It was argued that the JMU being a Central University, is funded by the Ministry of Human Resources and funded by the University Grants Commission.
- And the same UGC had approved the formation of Sarojini Naidu Women’s Studies Centre in the year 2000, thus the petitioner working as the Director of the said centre should receive compensation for the regularization of her salary in 2019 which still hasn’t been fulfilled amounting to Rs. 6 crores as prayed before the court.
Judgment
- Chief Justice Sharma questioned the university if the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar are being paid fairly and regularly, it was answered in the affirmative, so it was suggested by the bench that they should pay the teacher out of their own salaries.
- The court additionally observed that during the previous trial, Jamia had categorically said that it would settle all unpaid debts owed to the petitioner Professor, and that she would also receive her normal monthly payments.
Conclusion
The petition was dismissed by the and was labelled as an attempt by the JMU to use the court to extract funds from the UGC and to override the previous order.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
