Delhi High Court
Inderjeet Singh Sidhu vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 December, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: December 13, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 11049/2017 & C.M. 45213/2017
INDERJEET SINGH SIDHU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.N. Kaul, Advocate
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC &
Mr. Harsh Ahuja, Advocate for respondents
No.1 & 2-UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
ORAL
1. Petitioner was working as Chief Operating Officer with second
respondent and on 29th March, 2017 he voluntarily tendered his
resignation with the prayer that he may be relieved at the earliest. Vide E-
mail communication of 31st March, 2017 (Annexure P-10 colly.),
petitioner was informed by the Management of second respondent that his
resignation submitted on 29th March, 2017 has been accepted w.e.f. 31st
March, 2017. According to petitioner, this communication was received
by him on 07:29 p.m. and at 07:40 p.m., he had replied to second
respondent vide e-mail on the same very date i.e. 31st March, 2017 that he
is not in a position to pay three months' salary in lieu of notice period and
so, his notice period be set off against his Privileged Leave and the
balance notice period be waived off or in the alternative, he may be
allowed to serve for the notice period. However, on 1st April, 2017,
petitioner had handed over the charge to the designated officer of second
respondent and it is so evident from Annexure P-9 to this petition. It is the
case of petitioner that on 2nd May, 2017, vide e-mail he had sought
relieving from second respondent but to no avail.
2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had
drawn the attention of this Court to e-mail Communication of 24th June,
2017 (Annexure P-11) by second respondent, wherein it was disclosed to
petitioner that notice pay has been deducted from the claimed amount but
still recovery of `10,182/- towards the hotel bill is to be settled by
petitioner. Vide aforesaid e-mail communication of 24th June, 2017
(Annexure P-11), it was also conveyed to petitioner that as per company's
rules, there is no facility to adjust Privileged Leave against notice pay,
except in case of employees who submit resignation on medical grounds,
subject to certification by a government Medical Board that he/she is
unfit for continuing in service, and subject to approval of CMD. Counsel
for petitioner submits that vide aforesaid Communication of 24 th June,
2017 (Annexure P-11), it was clarified by second respondent that
petitioner had not been exempted from payment of notice pay and was
called upon to settle the dues.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that a Legal Notice
of 31st August, 2017 (Annexure P-12), was sent to second respondent,
which has been replied to on behalf of second respondent vide
Communication of 17th November, 2017 (Annexure P-13).
4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order 31 st March, 2017
(Annexure P-1), e-mail of 24th June, 2017 (Annexure P-11) of second
respondent and the material on record, I find that second respondent in its
communication of 24th June, 2017 (Annexure P-11), has categorically
stated that the amount has been deducted from the claimed amount.
However, in this very e-mail of 24th June, 2017 (Annexure P-11), there is
contradiction, as second respondent has stated that petitioner is not
exempted from payment of notice pay. This apparent contradiction is not
reconciled in any subsequent communication or reply to Legal Notice of
7th November, 2017 (Annexure P-13 colly.) of second respondent.
5. In such a situation, it is deemed appropriate to permit petitioner to
make a concise Representation highlighting the apparent contradiction in
e-mail of 24th June, 2017 (Annexure P-11) of second respondent and in
case such a Representation is received by second respondent within a
week, then it be decided by passing a speaking order while explaining the
apparent contradiction in the e-mail of 24th June, 2017 (Annexure P-11)
of second respondent and spell out as to why a compassionate view be
not taken, by either adjusting the notice pay against the Privileged Leave
or in the alternative, what is the impediment to permit petitioner to serve
during the notice period, at a place deemed appropriate by second
respondent. The decision on petitioner's Representation be taken by
second respondent within a period of six weeks and its fate be made
known to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail
of the remedies, as available in law, if need be.
6. With aforesaid directions, this petition and application are disposed
of.
Dasti.
SUNIL GAUR
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 13, 2017
r
