by Dec 18, 2013
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Tuesday rejected IIT, Delhi's plea to dismiss Subramanian Swamy's civil suit claiming that the institute owes him more than Rs 70 lakhs for the services he rendered during his tenure there as an Assistant Professor between 1972 and 1991.
Justice Manmohan Singh dismissed the plea after both IIT and Swamy failed to settle the issue out of court.
The Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, (IIT-D) had approached high court against a city court's order agreeing to hear Swamy's plea seeking recovery of the alleged dues of Rs 19 lakh along with interest of 18 percent from February 1991.
Justice Manmohan Singh dismissed the plea after both IIT and Swamy failed to settle the issue out of court.
The Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, (IIT-D) had approached high court against a city court's order agreeing to hear Swamy's plea seeking recovery of the alleged dues of Rs 19 lakh along with interest of 18 percent from February 1991.
]![Subramanian Swamy. Reuters]()
Subramanian Swamy. Reuters
In its plea, the petitioner took the ground that his plea was time-barred and beyond the jurisdiction of the court.
Subramanian Swamy. ReutersThe lower court had on February 26, 2012 agreed to hear Swamy's plea and dismissed IIT's application seeking dismissal of his civil suit on the ground that it was time-barred and beyond the jurisdiction of the court.
According to IIT, Swamy's total claim, including interest, would come to Rs 70.20 lakh which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the lower court.
Swamy had filed the suit in the lower court to recover salary and allowances in revised grade from December 12, 1972 till May 21, 1991 along with interest at 18 percent with effect from February 20, 1991 till the date of payment and gratuity, pension.
Opposing Swamy's civil suit, IIT had said his claim for alleged dues was rejected by it as he had failed to provide the details of the amount earned from his employment between December 11, 1972 to March 27, 1991.
Swamy had said he came to know about his dues only in 2009 after filing RTI applications which showed the Director had "falsely" presented the case for his dues before the Board of Governors. .
PTI