VIDYA SAGAR SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA

UKHC010185412026

2026:UHC:9438-DB

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
SL
Date
N0.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPSB/676/2026
Vidya Sagar Singh --Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India and others --Respondents

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A. C. J.
Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

1. Ms. Medha Pande and Mr. Damin Deo
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Saruav Adhikari, learned counsel for
the respondent no. 1/Union of India.
3. Dr. Karitkey Hari Gupta, learned counsel
for the respondent nos. 2 to 4.
4. Petitioner is serving as Professor
(Statistics) in Hemvati Nandan Garhwal Central
University. He is also holding the position of
Head of the Department (Statistics). In this writ
petition, the petitioner has sought the following
reliefs:
“( i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of certiorari to quash the letter dated 23.09.2026
of the Executive Council (Annexure No. 2) (page
no.38).
(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in nature of
certiorari to quash the office order dated
20.04.2026 (Annexure no. 3) (page no. 39), vide
which the petitioner was directed to record his
attendance in the office of the respondent no.3.
(iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of certiorari to quash the office order dated
21.05.2026, 25.07.2026, 22.08.2026, 23.09.2026
(Annexure No. 4) (page no. 40 to 45), vide which
the petitioner's salary for certain days in the
months of May, July, August and September,
2026 respectively were not counted.
(iv) To issue a writ, order or direction in nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to pay the

UKHC010185412026

2026:UHC:9438-DB

remaining salary, for the months of May, July,
August and September, 2026 of the petitioner
wrongly withheld, along with interest accrued at
the rate of 12.5 pa. till date of payment.
(v) To issue a writ, order and direction in nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to adopt a
uniform system of attendance for teachers and
others staff of Hemawati Nandan Bahuguna
Gahrwal (Central) University, Srinagar (Garhwal),
Uttarakhand (HNBGU)."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner has not been paid part of the
salary since the month of May, 2026. Petitioner
has challenged the Communication dated
23.09.2026, issued by the Registrar of HNB,
Garhwal University, whereby petitioner was
asked to apply for appropriate leave for the
period of his absence from duty and was
informed that if he fails to submit application
for leave, then the Vice Chancellor has been
authorised to adjust the permissible leave from
his leave account. Petitioner has also
challenged the communication dated
20.04.2026 issued by the Director, Swami Ram
Teerath Campus. Badshahi Thaul, Tehri
Garhwal, whereby he was asked to mark his
presence in the Attendance Register
maintained in the office of Director. Petitioner
has challenged yet another letter dated
21.05.2026 issued by Director of the aforesaid
campus, whereby he was informed about the
dates on which, he remained absent from duty
and further that he will not be paid salary for

UKHC010185412026

2026:UHC:9438-DB

the period of his absence.
6. Learned counsel for the University,
submits that petitioner is in the habit of
remaining absent from duty without intimation
and without applying for leave. He further
submits that petitioner's absence from duty
has become more prominent after May, 2026.
He further submits that petitioner has refused
to sign on the Attendance Register maintained
in the office of Director, Swami Ram Teerath
Campus, Badshahi Thaul, Tehri Garhwal. He
further submits that petitioner has not applied
for leave even though he was asked to do so
vide letter dated 23.09.2026.
7. Thus, it is contended that unless
petitioner's period of absence is regularised by
leave sanctioning authority, it would not be
possible to release full salary of the petitioner.
8. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, we do not find any
scope for interference. Every University
employee, including a Professor or Head of
Department, has to obey lawful orders of the
competent authority. From the record, it is
revealed that petitioner has not complied with
the lawful directions of the Vice Chancellor and
other University authorities.
9. Petitioner has sought quashing of letters
issued to him whereby he was asked to apply

UKHC010185412026

2026:UHC:9438-DB

for leave for the period of his absence and to
mark his attendance in the register maintained
in Director’s office. There is no illegality in the
letters, which may warrant interference.
10. The writ petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed.

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.)(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.)
15.10.2026 15.10.2026


Kaushal