WRIT PETITION 6193/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(C)6193/2025,CMAPPL.28252/2025,CMAPPL.28253/2025, CM APPL. 28254/2025 & CM APPL. 28255/2025DR. SANJAY KANT PRASAD.....PetitionerThrough:Mr. Archit Verma, Advocate.28253/2025, CM APPL. 28254/2025 & CM APPL. 28255/2025DR. SANJAY KANT PRASAD.....PetitionerThrough:Mr. Archit Verma, Advocate.

versus

THE DIRECTOR, ACADEMIC COORDINATION DIVISION,INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPENUNIVERSITY & ORS......RespondentsThrough:Mr. Aly Mirza, Advocate.

CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R R%09.05.2025

1.Issue notice. Mr. Aly Mirza, learned counsel, accepts notice onbehalf of the respondents.

2.The petitioner is an employee of Indira Gandhi National OpenUniversity [“IGNOU”] in the post of Additional Director, NationalCentre for Disability Studies. He assails two orders of IGNOU: an orderdated 01.11.2024, by which his pay was re-fixed, and an order dated28.11.2024, by which recovery was sought to be effected in the sum ofRs.32,73,312/-.

3.It is clear from the order dated 28.11.2024 that the revision of payfixation and recovery pertains to the entire period during which he hasbeen in the employment of IGNOU, which commenced on 14.05.2008.

4.The petitioner has represented against the recovery on 17.12.2024.

W.P.(C) 6193/2025

Page 1 of 3

The petitioner’s representation details the events leading to his payfixation in the year 2008 and further revisions. He has also raised agrievance with regard to the lack of hearing afforded to him and the delayin the purported rectification of his pay.

5.However, I am informed, that even without addressing the saidrepresentation, recovery in terms of the order dated 28.11.2024 hascommenced from the petitioner’s salary from the month of February 2025onwards.

6.The points raised by the petitioner must be addressed by theemployer. Further judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Punjaband Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors. [(2015) 4 SCC 334,decided on 18.12.2014], Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala & Ors. [2022SCC OnLine SC 536, decided on 02.05.2022], and Jogeshwar Sahoo andOrs. v. The District Judge, Cuttack and Ors. [SLP (C) No. 5918/2024,decided on 04.04.2025] also clearly delineate the limited circumstancesunder which an employer may recover from an employee excessemoluments paid to him. In the present case, there does not appear, on theface of the orders dated 01.11.2024 and 28.11.2024, to be any allegationof fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner.

7.Having regard to these circumstances, the writ petition is disposedof, with the direction that the respondents will consider the petitioner’srepresentation dated 17.12.2024, alongwith the grounds and documentsannexed to the writ petition. The disposal of the representation shouldtake place within period of six weeks from today, after personalhearing is granted to the petitioner.

8.Having regard to the fact that the purported recovery relates back

W.P.(C) 6193/2025

Page 2 of 3

to 2008, it is directed that no further recovery will be made from thepetitioner’s emoluments until the representation is decided, and for afurther period of four weeks thereafter.

9.The petitioner will, however, continue to be paid at the rate atwhich he is paid in accordance with the salary he has drawn in April2025, subject to any increments that may accrue to him in the normalcourse. If the petitioner ultimately succeeds in his representation, thearrears payable to him will also be paid within four weeks thereafter.

10.All rights and remedies of the parties are reserved.

11.All pending applications are disposed of.

MAY 9, 2025SS/JM/

PRATEEK JALAN, J

W.P.(C) 6193/2025

Page 3 of 3