Amrita Sinha DECISION
Amrita Sinha, J.
1. The issue to be decided in the instant writ petition is, whether the University can deduct a portion of the salary of its employees, as donation, without obtaining their consent.
2. The petitioners are Adhyapakas of different departments of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan. They are dissatisfied with the action on the part of the Registrar (Acting), Visva-Bharati in issuing a notice being No. REG/1547 dated 24th May, 2020 intimating that the accounts office will deduct a day's salary from the monthly salary of May, 2020, for donating the same in the Chief Minister's Relief Fund, West Bengal/West Bengal State Emergency Relief Fund in aid of the people affected by cyclone Amphan that hit Kolkata and several districts of West Bengal on 20th May, 2020.
3. A subsequent notice dated 29th May, 2020 issued by the Registrar (Acting) has also been placed before the Court. The notice mentions that by virtue of the powers vested in the University and the Vice-Chancellor as per Sections 6 and 14(3) read with Section 5A and other provision of the Visva-Bharati Act, 1951, herein after referred to as 'the Act', the Vice-Chancellor has found it appropriate for the University to contribute to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund, West Bengal/West Bengal State Emergency Relief Fund by means of donation of one day's salary of all permanent employees to support the endeavour of the Government. The notice further mentions that the permanent employees of Visva-Bharati are expected to donate a day's salary in keeping with the Rabindrik tradition and objectives of the University which are described in Sections 5A, 6 and elsewhere in the Act and Statutes.
4. The aforesaid Sections of the Act have been placed.
5. According to the petitioners, the deduction is impermissible without obtaining the consent of the employees.
6. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the unilateral action on the part of the University in deducting the salary from the employees, including the petitioners, is wholly without jurisdiction and de hors the provision of law.
7. According to the petitioners, there is no provision in the Act which entitles the University to deduct a portion of the salary of an employee. The provisions relying which the salary has been deducted do not confer any such power upon the University. The petitioners strongly contend that the deduction is without any authority of law.
8. The petitioners inter alia pray for a direction upon the respondent authorities to refund the amount illegally deducted from their salary.
9. Per contra, the learned advocate representing Visva-Bharati submits, that the deduction has been made invoking the provision of Section 14(3) of the Act which permits the Vice-Chancellor to exercise any power conferred on any authority of the University if immediate action is necessary on any matter.
10. It has further been submitted that the second proviso of Section 14(3) of the Act lays down that, an employee who is aggrieved by the action of the Vice-Chancellor shall have the right to appeal against such action to the Karma-Samiti (Executive Council) within ninety days from the date of communication of such action. It has been submitted that instead of exhausting the remedy available under the Act, the petitioners have approached this Court directly. Submission has been made for dismissal of the writ p........