HC relief for visually challenged DU prof fined Rs 6L for hostel overstay

The Delhi high court on Tuesday said no further coercive action will be taken by the Delhi University against its visually impaired professor who has been fined over Rs 6 lakh for overstaying at its hostel facility.

Justice Sanjeev Narula issued notice on a petition by Sharmishtha Atreja against the imposition of the fine and asked the varsity to file its response within four weeks.

"Till the next date of hearing, no further coercive action will be taken," said the court as it listed the matter for further hearing on October 1.

The petitioner, a professor of philosophy at the arts faculty, received a communication from DU last month demanding over Rs 6 lakh for her stay at its hostel from August 2021 to March 2024.

Calling the demand unjustified and liable to be quashed, the petitioner's counsel asserted there was no break up of the quantification of the amount sought to be recovered from her, especially when she was not an unauthorised occupant of the premises.

It was argued that under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, the administration was bound to provide a reasonable accommodation to her.

The court was also informed that an amount of Rs 33,000 has already been recovered from her salary.

The lawyer appearing for DU argued that the petition was not maintainable in view of an earlier litigation between the parties on the issue and claimed the petitioner's stay was not authorised. He sought time from court to place the varsity's stand on record.

According to Atreja, she stayed at DU's undergraduate girl's hostel from August 2021 till March 2024 and was asked to vacate the accommodation allotted to her in August 2023, when her tenure as the resident tutor at the hostel ended.

She has claimed she requested for an extension of her stay on multiple occasions but her pleas were turned down.

On February 17, the high court, while deciding Atreja's challenge to an October 2023 DU letter asking her to vacate the Type-V, University Hostel accommodation, had asked the institution to consider her representation regarding the demand raised by the administration towards the use of the property.

Considering that the petitioner was 100 percent visually impaired, it had requested DU to take a sympathetic view.

DU had then informed the court that it had identified an alternative accommodation for the petitioner but certain civil works were required to be carried out on the premises.