Vipin Kumar vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 2257 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of Order: April 11, 2018

+                         W.P.(C) 5795/2017
       VIPIN KUMAR                                  ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. Aasim Ali and Mr. Faiz
                         Sherwani, Advocates
                    Versus

       HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
                                                   .....Respondents
                    Through: Mr.Raj Birbal with Ms. Raavi
                    Birbal, Advocate for respondent-HPCL
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
                    ORDER

(ORAL)

1. Petitioner's Representation against '4' rating for the year 2014- 2015 (Annexure A-2 colly.) stands rejected by impugned order of 20th September, 2016 (Annexure A-1 Colly.). Prayer clause of the writ petition refers to a Representation of 20th September, 2016. It is pointed out by learned counsel for respondents that no such Representation is on record. Learned counsel for petitioner clarifies that it is a typographical error and infact, the Representation is of 20th September, 2015.

2. Be that as it may. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned rejection (Annexure A-1 colly.), I find that petitioner's appraisal for the year 2014-15 has been considered while noting that majority of the targets have been met by petitioner, but considerable number of targets were not met. In the Representation, details of the projects, which have been completed by petitioner in time, have been spelt out. In such a

situation, what was least required was that details of the number of targets, which were not met by petitioner, ought to have been spelt out in impugned rejection by respondents.

3. At this stage, learned counsel for respondents fairly states that petitioner's Representation of 27th October, 2015 (Annexure A-2 colly.) would be reconsidered by passing a speaking order, within a period of six weeks and its fate would be conveyed to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be.

4. Let it be so done.

5. This petition is accordingly, disposed of.

Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE APRIL 11, 2018 s