Delhi High Court
Puneet Kumar vs The Apparel Export Promotion ... on 2 November, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
I-14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: November 02, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 10282/2015 & C.M. 25535-36/2015
PUNEET KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Tikku, Senior
Advocate with Mr. U.D.Bhargava,
Advocate
versus
THE APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL AND ORS.
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. G.L. Rawal, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Kuljeet Rawal, Advocate
for respondents No.1 & 2
Mr. Vikram Jaitley, Central
Government Standing Counsel &
Mr. Sumit T Rajput, Advocate for
respondents No.3 & 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Vide impugned order of 21st September, 2015 (Annexure P-13),
petitioner's salary has been refixed with retrospective effect. Petitioner
had made a Representation (Annexure P-14) on 29th September, 2015, to
which interim response of 12th October, 2015 (Annexure P-15) of the
respondents is that the first respondent is awaiting advice from the
competent authority i.e. Ministry of Textiles and Department of
Personnel & Training.
At the hearing, learned senior counsel for petitioner assailed the
impugned order on the ground of mala fides. It was pointed out by
learned senior counsel that petitioner exposed various facets of financial
irregularities and bungling in the respondent-Council and the list of
financial irregularities etc., as pointed out by petitioner, is annexed as
Annexure P-9A with this petition. Attention of this Court was drawn to
the Advertisement (Annexure P-2) to point out that the remuneration
offered was dependent upon the job profile of the aspirant for the post of
Secretary General of respondent-Council. As per petitioner's letter of
appointment of 9th March, 2015 (Annexure P-8), the salary offered to
petitioner was of `5,00,000/- p.m., which excluded the House Rent
Allowance, Medical and other allowances. It was asserted on behalf of
petitioner that in terms of the appointment letter, petitioner had been
getting salary as offered by respondent-Council but due to the
irregularities pointed out by petitioner in the functioning of respondent-
Council, its Executive Committee in the meeting of 10th April, 2015
(Annexure P-12) malafidely resolved that petitioner's pay be refixed in
terms of the last pay drawn by petitioner prior to his appointment in the
respondent-Council. It was pointed out that petitioner's last pay scale
was routinely indicated in the letter of 28th November, 2013 written by
Ministry of Textiles granting Government's approval to appointment of
petitioner to the post of Secretary General in respondent-Council and the
same cannot be made the basis to refix the pay of petitioner after a period
of two years or so. Thus, quashing of the impugned order is sought in
this petition.
This petition is staunchly opposed by learned counsel for
respondent-Council who submits that this petition is premature, as
petitioner's Representation (Annexure P-14) is still pending and the
advice of the competent authority is awaited and as soon as the advice is
received, petitioner's Representation would be promptly decided.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate
to dispose of this writ petition with direction to respondent-Council to
decide petitioner's Representation (Annexure P-14) by passing a speaking
order after the requisite advice is received by the respondent-Council.
Needless to say, third respondent i.e. Ministry of Textiles shall ensure
that the requisite advice is promptly forwarded to respondent-Council to
enable it to decide petitioner's Representation with promptitude.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is directed that till
petitioner's Representation (Annexure P-14) is decided by respondent-
Council, impugned order (Annexure P-13) as well as Resolution
(Annexure P-12) be not acted upon.
With aforesaid directions, this petition and application are disposed
of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 02, 2015
r
