The Delhi High Court has instructed Delhi University and Swami Shraddhanand College to return Rs 25.75 lakh withheld from a retired Sanskrit academic, ruling that administrators acted unlawfully by clawing back his salary and pension benefits over an unsubmitted doctoral thesis from decades earlier.
Delivering the judgment on an October 8 petition, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna quashed the university and college communications from 2011 and 2012 that had stripped the educator of his study leave increments and deducted money from his retiral corpus. The court ordered authorities to reinstate his pay scale as of his retirement date, recompute his pension, commuted pension, and leave encashment, and disburse all accumulated pension arrears dating back to December 1, 2011.
Decades Of Service Followed Approved Research Leave
The petitioner, Vinod Kumar Khurana, began his academic career as a lecturer in the Department of Sanskrit at Swami Shraddhanand College in July 1971. In 1979, he enrolled in a doctoral program in Sanskrit, and four years later, Delhi University approved his study leave. The college granted him paid leave covering full salary and allowances starting in September 1983.
Following a recommendation from his research supervisor, who assessed his progress as satisfactory, authorities extended the sabbatical twice, bringing the total approved research period to three years. Khurana resumed his teaching responsibilities on September 15, 1986, though he had not submitted his dissertation. He subsequently taught at the institution for more than 25 years until his retirement on November 30, 2011.
Audit Query Triggered Post-Retirement Clawback
Roughly three months prior to Khurana’s superannuation, the university pension cell directed the college to ascertain whether he had completed the doctoral program, advising that his notional increments during the sabbatical be revoked if the degree remained unfinished. In response to college inquiries, Khurana stated that the extensive scope of the subject and his supervisor’s retirement had hindered earlier submission. He noted that the manuscript was finished and sought formal permission to submit it, a request the university turned down.
Following his retirement, the college recomputed Khurana’s compensation packages. Officials deducted Rs 11.40 lakh under the head of salary recovery and appropriated Rs 14.35 lakh from his provident fund, prompting Khurana to contest the administrative orders before the High Court through advocates Ravindra S Garia and Shashank Singh. The university administration was represented by advocate Mohinder Rupal and accompanying counsel.
Recovery Lacked Legal Authority, Rules Bench
Setting aside the recovery orders, Justice Krishna noted that Khurana had completed more than a quarter-century of post-leave service, far exceeding the mandatory three-year service condition attached to his sabbatical. The court observed that he had neither abandoned his post nor faced disciplinary inquiries, judicial proceedings, dismissal, or findings of gross misconduct throughout his tenure.
The bench held that the service regulations governing the lecturer did not permit authorities to demand refunds or withhold increments solely because a degree was not completed, provided the employee returned to service and fulfilled the minimum term. Emphasizing that pensionary entitlements are constitutionally shielded property rights rather than discretionary handouts, the court held that even if the sums were classified as surplus payments, the deductions had no standing in law.
