The Delhi High Court has directed Delhi University to refund Rs 25.75 lakh recovered from a retired teacher’s salary and retirement benefits, holding that the university could not recover the money merely because the teacher had not completed his PhD during study leave, as the rules applicable to him did not allow such recovery.The teacher, one Vinod Kumar Khurana, had taken study leave between 1983 and 1986, rejoined duty and continued working for over 25 years before retiring in November 2011. The court found that the recovery was not authorised by law and directed the university and the college to restore his pay and recalculate his pension and other retirement benefits.Justice Neena Bansal Krishna was hearing a plea by the teacher seeking to set aside the university’s 2011 communication and a subsequent college communication in 2012, which led to the withdrawal of his increments for the study leave period and recovery of money from his retirement benefits.“No departmental or judicial proceedings were ever instituted against the petitioner, and no finding of grave misconduct or negligence exists. The only event invoked is non-completion of studies by September 13, 1986, which took place twenty-five years before his retirement.. The recoveries from the petitioner’s retiral benefits are, therefore, without authority of law,” the October 8 order read. 25 years of service after three years of study leaveThe man was appointed as a lecturer in the Department of Sanskrit at Swami Shraddhanand College in July 1971. He applied for admission to a PhD course in Sanskrit in April 1979 and was admitted later that year.In 1983, the university approved his study leave. The college granted him leave on full pay and allowances for one year, from September 1983 to September 1984, to conduct research for his PhD. His leave was extended for two more years, taking the total to three years. His research supervisor had described his work as “satisfactory” while recommending the final extension. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that the teacher had returned to work in 1986 and served for over 25 years.The teacher rejoined duty on September 15, 1986, after completing his study leave, but did not submit his PhD thesis during that period. He continued working at the college until his retirement on November 30, 2011.Story continues below this adAbout three months before his retirement, the university’s Pension Cell asked the college to confirm whether he had completed his course. If he had not, it said, his notional increments for the study leave period should be withdrawn.The college asked the teacher to confirm whether he had completed his studies. He replied that he had not submitted his thesis earlier because of the vastness of the subject and the retirement of his research supervisor. He said he had since completed the work and sought permission to submit the thesis. The university did not allow his request.After his retirement, the college recalculated his pay and retirement benefits, deducting Rs 11.40 lakh as salary recovery and Rs 14.35 lakh from his provident fund. The teacher challenged the recovery in court.The teacher was represented by advocates Ravindra S Garia and Shashank Singh, while the university officials were represented by advocate Mohinder Rupal and other counsel. Story continues below this adAlso Read | 14 days before retirement, cop dismissed: Court orders interest on delayed retiral dues‘Right to pension, valuable right’The court noted that the teacher had returned to work in 1986 and served for over 25 years, well beyond the prescribed three-year service period following his study leave. He had neither failed to rejoin duty nor left the service before completing the required period, and he had not been dismissed or removed. “Non-completion of studies did not render a teacher liable to any refund,” it added. The court said the study leave rules applicable to him had removed non-completion of studies as a ground for recovering salary and allowances. The rules also allowed teachers on study leave to receive increments, provided they returned to duty and completed the required period of service.The high court also noted that the Constitution protects a person from being deprived of property without legal authority. “The right to pension is not a bounty, but a valuable right in property,” it added. The high court also mentioned that even if the payments were to be treated as “excess”, the recovery would be impermissible as per the rules applicable. Story continues below this adThe court set aside the withdrawal of increments and the recoveries. It directed the university and college to restore his pay as drawn at retirement, recalculate his pension, commuted pension and leave encashment, and pay the pension arrears from December 1, 2011.