Court Upholds Promissory Estoppel Against University of Delhi, Orders Restoration of Salary and Benefits with Interest
In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of Dr. Asha Gupta, a former Director at the Directorate of Hindi Medium Implementation (DHMI), University of Delhi, quashing the University's retrospective withdrawal of retirement benefits. The decision was delivered by Justice Sanjeev Narula, who underscored the principles of promissory estoppel and natural justice, affirming that public authorities cannot unilaterally withdraw specific assurances that individuals have relied upon to their detriment.
The dispute centered around Executive Council Resolution No. 126, dated December 27, 2007, which treated Dr. Gupta's position as a teaching post for the purpose of determining her retirement age, thus extending it to 65 years. The University later attempted to rescind this resolution retrospectively, treating her as having superannuated in 2012 and seeking recovery of alleged excess payments.
Justice Narula ruled that the University could not retroactively alter Dr. Gupta's retirement status without observing the principles of natural justice, highlighting that she had acted upon the University's assurance, allowing her lien at Bharati College to lapse. The court emphasized that such retrospective nullification of service terms constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power, violating Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
The court ordered the University to treat Dr. Gupta as having continued in service until April 30, 2017, for all consequential purposes, including salary and retiral benefits. The judgment also directed the University to pay interest at 9% per annum on unpaid dues, cautioning that failure to comply within six weeks would attract a higher interest rate of 12% per annum for the period of default.
This judgment reinforces the doctrine of promissory estoppel in public law, ensuring that individuals are not unfairly deprived of benefits promised by public authorities. It also clarifies the limitations of administrative actions that affect the service status and benefits of employees.
Bottom line:-
Promissory estoppel applies in cases where a public authority makes a specific representation, and the individual acts upon it to their detriment. Retrospective withdrawal of benefits granted under an administrative resolution without observing natural justice is unsustainable.
Statutory provision(s): Promissory Estoppel, Principles of Natural Justice, Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, Executive Council Resolution No. 126, University Non-Teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules.
Asha Gupta v. University of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2933288
