Recently, the Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition, quashing the revocation of the petitioner’s joining as Vice President (Finance) with Hindustan Urvarak & Rasayan Ltd. The Court held that since the petitioner had obtained a relieving letter from his previous employer, Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited (BVFCL), there was no barrier to his appointment. The Court observed that the petitioner’s inability to provide the relieving letter initially was the sole reason for his joining revocation.
The Petitioner had resigned from BVFCL, where he was employed as General Manager (Finance), upon being offered the role of Vice President (Finance) by Hindustan Urvarak & Rasayan Ltd. After joining the new position, BVFCL delayed processing his resignation, prompting Hindustan Urvarak to issue a revocation notice. Following litigation, BVFCL ultimately accepted his resignation, clearing the petitioner to rejoin.
The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prior writ petition before the Gauhati High Court was disposed of on 03.10.2024, with BVFCL issuing an order relieving the petitioner as of that date. Counsel contended that with this relieving letter now in place, the petitioner should be permitted to resume his role as Vice President (Finance) with the Respondent, as the lack of this document was the only reason cited for revocation in the impugned order.
On the other hand, counsel for the Respondent acknowledged that, due to the Court’s interim order dated 28.08.2024, no fresh recruitment steps had been taken, leaving the position vacant. Counsel further confirmed that the revocation was based solely on the absence of the petitioner’s relieving letter from BVFCL, not on the petitioner’s qualifications or performance, as he had been duly selected for the post.
The High Court highlighted that the petitioner’s selection to the post of Vice President (Finance) was legitimate, following a due process where his qualifications were duly recognized. The Court remarked, “There is no dispute between the parties that the petitioner was appointed to the post by the Respondent after successfully clearing the selection process”. It noted that the only issue for revoking his appointment was the absence of a relieving letter from BVFCL, his former employer, within the 30-day window stipulated in his joining terms.
The Court further observed, “BVFCL has since relieved the petitioner effective from 03.10.2024, thus the basis of the impugned order no longer survives”. Given this development, the Court saw no remaining obstacle for the petitioner to resume his role, emphasizing that due to the interim order, the Respondent had not initiated any new process to fill the vacancy, leaving the post vacant and available for the petitioner.
Case Title: Matthew Johnson Dara v. Hindustan Urvarak and Rasayan Ltd.
Citation: W.P.(C) 11818/2024
Coram: Justice Jyoti Singh
Order Date: 16.10.2024
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Anupam Lal Das (Senior Advocate), Punit D. Tyagi, Abhishek Mehra
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Praveen Kumar Singh, Sujit Kumar Singh, Md. Ziauddin Ahmad
Picture Source :
