Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


V.Indra Bhavani. v. The Under Secretary - Writ Petition No.18252 of 1999 [2002] RD-TN 816 (11 October 2002)


DATED: 11/10/2002


The Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.K.MISRA.

Writ Petition No.18252 of 1999


W.M.P.No.26602 of 1999

V.Indra Bhavani. .. Petitioner -Vs-

1.The Under Secretary,

University Grants Commission,

Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,

New Delhi-110 002.

2.The Director of Collegiate

Education, Chennai.

3.The Principal,

Sri Parasakthi College for Women,

Courtallam-627 802. .. Respondents For Petitioner -- Mr.P.R.Balasubramaniam.

For Respondent-1 -- Mr.S.Balaji,for



For Respondent-3 -- Mr.V.Manisekaran.

:O R D E R

Heard the counsel appearing for the parties.

2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuing a writ of Certiorarified Manadamus, for quashing the order dated 8.9.1999 passed by the first respondent.

3. The petitioner, a senior lecturer in the third respondent college, namely, Sri Parasakthi College for Women,Courtallam, had applied for National Fellowship Award under the University Grants Commission— first respondent. The University Grants Commission selected the petitioner for National Fellowship as per order dated 19-06-1996. Thereafter, the petitioner joined the course and was continuing as such. As per the scheme, the person who is selected for Fellowship is entitled to receive certain allowance and is also entitled to get the contingency grant of Rs.20,000/- per annum. As per the scheme, such a person is also entitled to get salary from the University Grants Commission for the duration of the Fellowship. Pursuant to the aforesaid selection, the petitioner availed of the facility and continued to do some work after joining the Fellowship and wrote to the University Grants Commission for payment of the Fellowship allowance and contingency grant and also for the salary. As per the letter dated 7-3-1998 the petitioner was also communicated that her salary would be reimbursed by the University Grants Commission. Subsequently on 8-9-1999 the Fellowship was withdrawn. This being challenged in the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after having selected the petitioner for Fellowship, there was no justification to withdraw the same and that too without any prior notice. Learned counsel appearing for the University Grants Commission submitted that the Fellowship is available only to Professors and since the petitioner was not a Professor and she was only a senior lecturer, she was not entitled to such allowances and by mistake she has been selected for Fellowship and therefore, no direction should be issued to the University Grants Commission for granting Fellowship for the remaining period.

5. Assuming that the petitioner was not eligible for the Fellowship, her application was considered and she was selected and on the basis of such selection she has joined the Fellowship and had incurred certain expenses. Moreover, the petitioner was entitled to the salary which has to be reimbursed to the University Grants Commission. Therefore, for no fault of the petitioner she has been subsequently be penalised, inasmuch as the salary for the period has not been paid and the amount incurred towards the contingency has not been reimbursed.

6. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. I am of the view that though the petitioner cannot claim the right to continue the Fellowship for the remainder of the period, the petitioner has a right to reimbursement of the amount already spent by her towards the contingency expenditure and also the petitioner has to be paid the salary for the period for which she had joined the Fellowship. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner should get the salary for three months and 23 days. The necessary amount should be made available by the University Grants Commission to the third respondent college for payment. Similarly, the petitioner is also entitled to be reimbursed the sum of Rs.20,000/- which she had already incurred by way of purchasing books for writing thesis. This direction may be complied with within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, W.M.P.No.26602 of 1999 is closed.





1.The Under Secretary,

University Grants Commission,

Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,

New Delhi-110 002.

2.The Director of Collegiate

Education, Chennai. W.P.No.18252 of 1999

3.The Principal,

Sri Parasakthi College for Women,

Courtallam-627 802.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.