p. 1 $~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9501/2026 JYOTI SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Suraj Kr. Jha, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Raghav Vij, Ms. Mehul Prasad, Ms. Sakshi Tiwari, Mr. Pratham Malik, Mr. Ritul Sharma and Ms. Vandrika Kapoor, Advocates. versus INDRAPRASTHA COLLEGE FOR WOMEN & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gogna and Ms. Simran, Advocates for R-1. Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, CGSC with Mr. Ojas Pandey, Ms. Usha Jamnal, Ms. Nyasa Sharma and Mr. Ankit Khatri, Advocates for R-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 27.07.2026 1. The Petitioner is an Assistant Professor in the Department of English at Indraprastha College for Women and is stated to have a 100% permanent locomotor disability. Being dependent upon a wheelchair for mobility, she had sought allotment of residential accommodation within the College campus to enable her to discharge her academic responsibilities. 2. As her requests were not acceded to, the Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) 5566/2025. The said petition was disposed of by an order dated 18th November, 2025, on the basis of a consensual arrangement This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/07/2026 at 14:10:58 p. 2 between the parties. The College agreed to allot Flat No. 1, Block-A to the Petitioner after carrying out the necessary repairs and renovation. The Petitioner, in turn, agreed to pay a licence fee of INR 20,000/- per month from the date of taking possession. 3. The order dated 18th November, 2025 also took note of the fact that a committee constituted by the University Grants Commission [“UGC”] was examining, inter alia, issues concerning House Rent Allowance [“HRA”]. Liberty was, accordingly, reserved to the Petitioner to avail appropriate remedies in respect of any benefit that might accrue to her pursuant to the decision of the said Committee. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the accommodation was allotted to the Petitioner. A Licence Agreement dated 15th January, 2026 was thereafter executed between the Petitioner and the College, and the Petitioner has since been residing in the allotted accommodation. 5. In the present petition, the Petitioner initially sought quashing of certain clauses of the Licence Agreement, a declaration that the accommodation be treated as Government accommodation governed by the applicable Government rules, and, in the alternative, a direction that her HRA not be deducted from her salary. 6. After advancing submissions for some time, Mr. Suraj Kr. Jha, counsel appearing for the Petitioner, confines the petition to the alternative relief concerning deduction of HRA. He submits that, apart from paying a licence fee of INR 20,000/- per month, the Petitioner is also being denied HRA, resulting in an effective monthly burden of approximately INR 42,000/-. 7. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gogna, counsel appearing for the College, submits This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/07/2026 at 14:10:58 p. 3 that the Petitioner accepted the allotment on payment of a licence fee of INR 20,000/- per month despite the issue of HRA having been noticed, and that the earlier proceedings were disposed of on the basis of the consensual arrangement so recorded. He, therefore, contends that the Petitioner cannot re-open the same issue through an independent writ petition. Mr. Gogna further submits that the Committee constituted by the UGC is examining the question of recovery or adjustment of HRA in certain cases, and not the broader policy issue as to whether HRA is payable at all. The pendency of that exercise, according to him, does not alter the terms of the arrangement recorded in the order dated 18th November, 2025. 8. There is merit in the objection. The order dated 18th November, 2025 records the terms on which the accommodation was allotted to the Petitioner and also notices the issue concerning HRA. The Petitioner having accepted the benefit of the allotment under that order, the effect and scope of the consensual arrangement cannot be reconsidered collaterally in a fresh writ petition. If the Petitioner’s case is that the question of recovery or adjustment of HRA was not intended to be concluded, or that the earlier order requires clarification or modification in that regard, the appropriate course would be to approach the Court which passed the said order. 9. At this stage, Mr. Suraj Kr. Jha, counsel for the Petitioner, seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to seek review, clarification or such other appropriate relief in W.P.(C) 5566/2025, in relation to the issue of HRA. 10. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to the Petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available in law in relation to the order dated 18th November, 2025. Any application so filed shall be This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/07/2026 at 14:10:58 p. 4 considered on its own merits and shall remain subject to all objections available to the Respondents, including as to maintainability and limitation. 11. It is clarified that this Court has expressed no opinion on the Petitioner’s entitlement to HRA or on the merits of any application that may be instituted in the earlier proceedings. SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 27, 2026/as This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/07/2026 at 14:10:58