Delhi District Court
Dr. Subhash C. Batra vs Central Warehousing Corporation on 11 May, 2026
CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHDEEP CHAHAL,
CIVIL JUDGE-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURT,
DELHI
Case No. : CS SCJ 78/2017
CNR No. : DLST03-002294-2016
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. Dr. Subhash C. Batra
S/o Late Shri Brij Lal Batra
R/o 23C, DDA Flats, Phase-1,
Masjid Moth, New Delhi-110048
............Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Central Warehousing Corporation
Through its Managing Director,
Warehousing Bhawan, 4/1, Siri Institutional Area,
August Krant Marg, Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
..........Defendant
****
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT &
MANDATORY INJUNCTION
****
Date of Institution of suit : 03.01.2017
Date of Reserving Judgment : 13.03.2026
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 11.05.2026
(Yashdeep Chahal),
Civil Judge-02 (South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
11.05.2026 (Page 1 of 103)
CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation
****
JUDGMENT
1. This decade-old case reminds this Court of the oft-quoted remark about the judicial system that the wheels of justice may grind slow, but they grind hard. At times, the wheels are further slowed down by procedural delays, legal gymnastics and multiplicity of proceedings before various forums. The present case is one such case where the infamous concept of forum shopping has been put to use in a nuanced manner, to seek redressal of similar and overlapping grievances before this Court and the Hon'ble High Court by the plaintiff, who was an officer in the defendant Corporation. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration, permanent and mandatory injunctions against the defendant.
PLAINT
2. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff held various positions with the Central Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter known as "CWC") since 24.08.1979 and the last position held by the plaintiff with the CWC was of Manager (General), re-designated as DGM (General), in substantive (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 2 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation capacity but he was asked to work as OSD Recovery. The plaintiff superannuated from the CWC on 30.11.2016.
3. Section 6 of the Act provides that the general superintendence and management of the affairs and business of the CWC is vested in the Board of Directors (hereinafter known as BOD) who, with the assistance of the Executive Committee (hereinafter known as EC) and the Managing Director (hereinafter known as MD), may exercise all the powers and discharge all the functions which may be exercised or discharged by the CWC under the Act. Section 10 (2) of the Act provides that every person employed by the CWC under the Act shall be subject to such conditions of service and shall be entitled to such remuneration as may be determined by the regulations made by the CWC under the Act and Section 42 of the Act confers powers on the CWC to make regulations with the previous sanction of the Central Govt., by notification in the Official Gazette, to provide for various matters and in particular, with regard to the conditions of service of, and the remuneration payable to, its officers and employees. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 42 of the Act, the CWC, with the previous sanction of the Central Govt., has made the regulations, namely the CWC (Staff) Regulations, 1986 (hereinafter known as "Regulations"), notified in the Official Gazette on 28.02.1986 and the same have also been amended from time to time. The CWC is, thus, bound to comply with the regulations framed by it from time to time.
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 3 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation
4. It is further submitted in the plaint that the plaintiff was recruited as Sr. Assistant Manager (General) by the CWC on 24.08.1979, and was promoted by the CWC to the post of Deputy Manager (General) on 29.07.1985. Plaintiff was recruited by the CWC as Manager (General) under the direct recruitment quota on 28.03.1990. The plaintiff was then promoted by the CWC to the post of Secretary, which is a selection post, on 06.04.1998 and since then, the plaintiff had been working as Secretary with the CWC. The Selection Committee/Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter known as "DPC") of the CWC met on 20.01.2004 and although the DPC recommended the name of the plaintiff for promotion to the post of Executive Director (ad-hoc), yet it placed a rider only in the case of the plaintiff, by adopting sealed cover procedure, despite the fact that till that day, no chargesheet was given to the plaintiff and the plaintiff was denied promotion to the post of Executive Director (ad-hoc). It is further averred that two cases were initiated against the plaintiff, namely, the case of purchase of black polythene covers from Indian Petro-chemical Corporation Limited, a Central Govt., Public Sector Undertaking (hereinafter known as "IPCL Case") and the case of conversion/ purchase of Lorry Weigh Bridges from M/s Weigh Well (India) Limited (hereinafter known as "LWBs Case") and the plaintiff was given chargesheets dated 03.03.2004 and 13.08.2004 respectively for major penalty proceedings in these two cases. Later on, the plaintiff was given another chargesheet (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 4 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation dated 21/23.01.2009 for minor penalty proceedings, in the matter of irregularities in release of Institutional Promotional Advertisements (hereinafter known as "IPA case"). All the above three chargesheets were given to the plaintiff despite the fact that there was no incriminating evidence of any wrongdoing, misconduct or negligence/ lapse on the part of/ against the plaintiff and these chargesheets were prepared and issued to the plaintiff on the basis of some mala fide and ulterior motives.
5. On 07.01.2005, the plaintiff moved the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of WP(C) Nos. 142/2005 & 143/2005 for quashing of the two chargesheets dated 03.03.2004 and 13.08.2004in IPCL case and LWB case respectively and for release of promotion, raising several points of law. On 30.09.2005 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) Nos. 142/2005& 143/2005 passed the following orders:-
"After hearing counsel for the parties, the respondents are restrained from giving effect to any orders passed pursuant to the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner till the next date of hearing" and the said interim order continued.
6. The plaintiff was holding and was working at the post of Secretary (since 06.04.1998) in substantive capacity, in the pay scale of Rs. 14300-400-18300/- Central Dearness Allowance (hereinafter known as "CDA Pay Pattern" and the plaintiff was transferred by the CWC in the same capacity to work as Regional Manager at Chandigarh vide Office Order dated 01.12.2006, (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 5 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation which the plaintiff joined on 22.12.2006. The CWC vide Office Order dated 21.08.2007, communicated that as Regional Manager, the plaintiff continues to be in the pay scale Rs. 14300- 400-18300/- (CDA pay pattern) and the plaintiff moved the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of LPA No. 86 of 2007 in the matter of the said transfer order dated 01.12.2006 and, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 02.02.2009 passed the following order in the said appeal:-
"Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2/ Central Warehousing Corporation states that the management of Respondent No. 2 is ready to post/ appoint the Appellant at Delhi on an appropriate post within one week.
7. Thereafter, vide Office Order dated 09.02.2009, the plaintiff was transferred, by the CWC, in the same capacity to Corporate Office at New Delhi to work as OSD (Recovery). The plaintiff accordingly joined at Corporate Office at New Delhi on 12.02.2009 at the post of OSD (Recovery) and since then the plaintiff continued to work at the said post of OSD (Recovery) till his superannuation on 30.11.2016.
8. In terms of the statement given by the CWC in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 02.02.2009 in LPA No. 86/2007, the CWC considered the post of OSD (Recovery) as an appropriate post in lieu of the post of Secretary and assigned the same Pay Scale of Rs. 14300-400-18300/- (CDA pay pattern) as that of Secretary. This pay scale was subsequently revised by the CWC (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 6 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation to Rs.37,400- 67,000/- + Grade Pay of Rs.8,700/- (CDA pay pattern) w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in pursuance of the 6th CPC report vide Office Order dated 16.03.2009, and the plaintiff was accordingly paid the salary w.e.f. 12.02.2009 while working at the post of OSD (Recovery) in the said pay scale on CDA pay pattern up to November, 2011. On 04.05.2010, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dismissed the WP(C) Nos. 142/2005 & 143/2005 in default.
9. In the meantime, the inquiries were conducted in IPCL case and LWBs case. The reports submitted by the Inquiry Officers in these cases were motivated and false and were contrary to the evidence on record. The CWC relying on the reports submitted by the Inquiry Officers, without even waiting for the written orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) Nos. 142/2005 & 143/2005, issued:-
i. Memorandum No. CWC/XIII-12/101/2000/AV/619/658D dated 04.05.2010 and Office Order No. CWC/I-5332/Estt./958A dated 05.05.2010 in IPCL case; ii. Memorandum No. CWC/XIII-8/202/99/AV/620/659D dated 04.05.2010 in LWB case;
They were delivered to the plaintiff in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi only on 06.05.2010 with under-mentioned penalties in the said two cases:-
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 7 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation
(a) Penalty in IPCL Case "to impose a major penalty of reduction to the immediate lower post of Manager (General), until found fit by Competent authority for promotion to next higher post. Seniority to be fixed as per rules."
(b) Penalty in LWBs Case "to impose the penalty of reduction of one stage in the time scale of pay applicable on the date of issue of the penalty order for a period of three years, with a further direction that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay." (Penalty in IPA case is mentioned at a subsequent relevant para).
10. On 05.05.2010, the Plaintiff filed applications before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for restoration of WP(C) Nos. 142/2005 & 143/2005 with the following prayers:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to recall the order dated 4th May 2010 and restore the writ petition to its original position with interim orders or may pass any other order or directions as may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice".
11. On 06.05.2010, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi stayed the effect of punishment orders dated 04.05.2010 in both the cases i.e. IPCL case and LWBs case and on 14.07.2010, the Hon'ble (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 8 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation High Court of Delhi passed the following orders in WP(C) Nos. 142/2005 & 143/2005:-
"Although the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and 3 has opposed the applications however, after some hearing he has agreed that the said applications be allowed and the matter may be put up for final disposal. Ordered accordingly. The petitions are restored to their original numbers. The applications stand disposed of".
12. The penalty orders in IPCL case and LWB case were not implemented by the CWC in pursuance of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 06.05.2010 and 14.07.2010 in WP(C) Nos. 142/2005 & 143/2005 respectively and the interim order dated 30.09.2005 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) Nos. 142/2005 & 143/2005, thus remained in operation w.e.f. 30.09.2005 till the final dismissal/disposal of these writ petitions on 17.04.2013. In the meantime on 12.01.2011, the EC acting as Disciplinary Authority (hereinafter known as "DA") imposed the following penalty on the plaintiff in the IPA case i.e. in chargesheet dated 21/23.01.2009, without affording the plaintiff an opportunity of hearing and thereby violated the principle of 'audi alteram partem':-
Penalty in IPAs Case - "the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of three years without cumulative effect in the time scale of pay, presently being drawn by him be imposed on Shri Batra. This would not have any effect on his retirement benefits. This order will come into effect immediately."
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 9 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation
13. The departmental appeal dated 22.06.2011 and departmental review dated 30.11.2012 preferred by the plaintiff in IPA case i.e. in the matter of chargesheet dated 21/23.01.2009 were rejected by the CWC on 22.08.2012 and 28.06.2013 respectively. Aggrieved by the said illegal actions of the CWC the plaintiff filed WP(C) No. 795/2014 in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of IPA case. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to issue notice and after the pleadings were complete, the Hon'ble High Court passed order on 20.03.2015 to admit and list the matter in due course in the category of Regular Matters as per the year of its seniority. The matter is pending in the Hon'ble High Court as a regular case.
14. The plaintiff, all along since his initial appointment in the CWC, had been drawing his salary in the CDA Pay Pattern in terms of his conditions of service of appointments and the extent regulations. However, the CWC compulsorily shifted the plaintiff, to his disadvantage, from CDA Pay Pattern to Industrial Dearness Allowance (hereinafter known as "IDA") Pay Pattern by issuing an Office Order NO CWC/I-CDA-Switch over-IDA/Rectt./2009/842A dated 02.12.2011, without even amending the extent regulations and without even giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to present his case in terms of the principles of natural justice. The CWC, accordingly, arbitrarily (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 10 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation fixed the pay of the plaintiff in the IDA scales of pay allegedly approved for the post of Secretary vide Office Order dated 21.12.2011 which, after some minor corrections, was revised by Office Order dated 29.02.2012 and the CWC accordingly paid the salary to the plaintiff from December, 2011 on IDA Pay Pattern in the IDA pay scale allegedly approved for the post of Secretary. Thus, aggrieved by this, the Plaintiff filed WP(C) No. 8920/2011 in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as the CWC altered the pay scale of the plaintiff from CDA pay pattern to IDA pay pattern w.e.f. 28.03.1990 to his disadvantage, against the conditions of service & contrary to the extent regulations and without following any procedure in terms of the principles of natural justice.
15. The plaintiff was further compelled to file WP(C) No. 7329/2012 in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as the CWC without any lawful reason rejected the plaintiff's request on 07.06.2012 and denied him the admissible HRA for the period from 01.04.1997 to 21.12.2006 to which the plaintiff was entitled, in terms of the relevant rules of the CWC. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to issue notice and after the pleadings were complete, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed order on 26.07.2013 to admit and list the matter in due course in the category of Regular Matters as per the year of its seniority. The matter is pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as a regular case.
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 11 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation
16. It is averred that on 17.04.2013, Ld. Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the WP(C) Nos. 142/2005 &143/2005 and gave findings only on one point of law, which was too technical in nature. The LPA Nos. 387/2013 & 377/2013 respectively preferred by the plaintiff against the final orders in WP(C) Nos. 142/2005 & 143/2005 were dismissed on 20.08.2015 and the Ld. Division Bench also confined its order only to one point of law and other points of law raised by the plaintiff in the WP(C)s/LPAS remained undecided on merits. The Review Petitions Nos. 457/2015 and 458/2015 preferred by the plaintiff in LPA Nos. 387/2013 & 377/2013 were dismissed on 30.09.2015 and 05.10.2015 respectively. The SLP Nos. 35652- 35653/2015 & 35915-35916/2015 preferred by the plaintiff against the final orders in LPA Nos. 387/2013 & 377/2013 were dismissed on 05.01.2016 and 19.02.2016 respectively in limine.
17. On 17.04.2013, after the dismissal of WP(C) Nos. 142/2005 & 143/2005, the CWC, without even waiting for the written orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) Nos. 142/2005 & 143/2005, implemented the penalties in IPCL case and LWB case through Office Orders dated 17.04.2013 (two office orders) but gave effect to the penalties from a retrospective date i.e. w.e.f. 04.05.2010. The departmental appeals dated 28.05.2013 preferred by the plaintiff in both these cases were (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 12 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation rejected by the CWC on 05.03.2014 but communicated on 01.04.2014. Aggrieved by the illegal actions of the CWC, the plaintiff filed WP(C) Nos. 8092/2014 and 8091/2014 in IPCL case and in LWBs case respectively in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, whereby the plaintiff challenged the departmental proceedings, penalty orders etc. in these two cases. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to issue notice and after the pleadings were complete, the Hon'ble High Court passed an order on 17.08.2015 to list the matters in regular matters. Both the cases are still pending.
18. The CWC issued Part-II Office Order dated 19.06.2013 by which the CWC fixed the pay of the plaintiff giving effect to the penalties in IPCL case and LWBs case, including the penalty of reversion to the post of DGM(G) in IPCL case, from a retrospective date i.e. w.e.f. 04.05.2010. This was despite the fact that the plaintiff during this period had worked and discharged the responsibilities of the higher post i.e. the post of OSD (Recovery) which was in lieu of the post of Secretary and had been paid his monthly salary accordingly. This was also contrary to the stay order granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which remained in operation w.e.f. 30.09.2005 to 17.04.2013. The pay of the plaintiff as per the Part-II Office Order dated 19.06.2013 was fixed by the CWC on IDA Pay Patten which the plaintiff had already challenged in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of WP(C) No. 8920/2011 and the same was (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 13 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation pending at that time. The plaintiff had already been paid his salary against the post of Secretary/OSD (Recovery) i.e. in the pay scale of Secretary on CDA Pay Pattern up to November, 2011 and in the pay scale allegedly approved for the post of Secretary/ OSD (Recovery) on IDA Pay Pattern from December, 2011 to June, 2013.
19. The plaintiff made a representation dated 10.07.2013, followed by a reminder, to the CWC, against the afore-said Part- II Office Order dated 19.06.2013, raising certain issues and contentions and pointed to the wrong and erroneous fixation of pay and requested the CWC to examine the matter with an open mind and take corrective actions. The CWC replied vide letter dated 16.09.2013 but did not deal with the issues and contentions and the matter of wrong and erroneous fixation of pay raised by the plaintiff fairly and reasonably.
20. Thereafter, the plaintiff made another representation dated 03.10.2013 followed by repeated reminders to the CWC to examine and consider the matter with a fair and objective mind and to take corrective action accordingly. The CWC, however, never responded to the plaintiff on his pending representations till date.
21. Thereafter, the CWC issued an Office Order No. CWC/I- CDA-Switch over-IDA/Rectt./2012-13 dated 28.05.2014 and (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 14 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation thereby superseded its earlier Office Order NO CWC/I-CDA- Switch over-IDA/Rectt./2009/842A dated 02.12.2011 in pursuance of which, the plaintiff had compulsorily been shifted from CDA Pay Pattern to IDA Pay Pattern and had been paid salary on IDA Pay Pattern w.e.f. December, 2011. As per the said Office Order dated 28.05.2014, the switch over from CDA Pay Pattern to IDA Pay Pattern was made optional and on voluntary basis. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 17.07.2014, the CWC presented the said Office Order dated 28.05.2014 in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 8920/2011 and accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the said writ petition as infructuous.
22. Even while issuing Office Order dated 28.05.2014, the anomaly which existed in the pay scale attached to the post of Secretary under CDA Pay Pattern vis-à-vis the pay scale allegedly approved for the post of Secretary under IDA Pay Pattern was not removed by the CWC and has not been removed even till date for the reasons best known to the concerned authorities of the CWC. It is very relevant to state here that the relevant regulation relating to the post of Secretary carries CDA pattern of pay scale and the same has not been amended till date and as such the post of Secretary in terms of the relevant regulation continues to be on CDA pattern of pay scales. The Plaintiff did not opt for IDA Pay Pattern. The CWC issued impugned Part-II Office Order dated 06.07.2015 whereby the (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 15 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation CWC fixed the pay of the plaintiff on CDA Pay Pattern. The CWC through the impugned Part-II Office Order dated 06.07.2015 withdrew the earlier Part-II Office Order dated 19.06.2013 as per which the pay of the plaintiff was fixed on IDA Pay Pattern. Through the impugned Part-II Office Order dated 06.07.2015, the CWC gave retrospective effect to the penalties in IPCL case and LWBs case including the penalty of reversion to the lower post of DGM (G) w.e.f. 04.05.2010 even though during the entire period from 04.05.2010, the plaintiff was made to discharge the responsibilities of the higher post of OSD (Recovery) which was in lieu of the post of Secretary, not only up to 17.04.2013 but even thereafter as well. The plaintiff has, however, been paid his salary on CDA Pay Pattern from the month of July, 2015 in pursuance of the impugned Part-II Office Order dated 06.07.2015 in the pay scale of the lower post of DGM(G) despite the plaintiff working on and discharging the responsibilities of higher post of OSD (Recovery) which was in lieu of the post of Secretary.
23. The plaintiff submits that as per Part-II Office Order dated 06.07.2015, the penalties in IPCL case and LWBs case including the penalty of reversion to the lower post of DGM (G) were given retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 04.05.2010 and in doing so, the CWC had deliberately ignored the relevant facts/ factors and thereby caused grave injustice to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff made representation dated 07.08.2015 followed by (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 16 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation reminder, against the impugned Part-II Office Order dated 06.07.2015, raising several issues and contentions including against the retrospective effect given to the penalties in IPCL case and LWB case and that there were fundamental errors in the impugned Part-II Office Order dated 06.07.2015 and requested the CWC to examine and consider the matter with a fair and objective mind and to take corrective action accordingly. The CWC, however, did not respond to and gave no reply on the said representation of the plaintiff and took no action on the representation.
24. The plaintiff made a representation through his letter dated 16.01.2015 to the CWC against denial of promotion/restoration of the plaintiff to the pre-reverted post even after no departmental proceedings were pending against him and the currency of all penalties imposed on him was also over. The CWC replied to the said representation dated 16.01.2015 of the plaintiff by its letter dated 09.07.2015 saying that the plaintiff was not actually working as DGM (G) on the date of holding the DPC on 15.06.2011 and became DGM (G) subsequently by an order dated 17.04.2013 made effective from May 2010 and thereby the CWC denied to hold the review DPC for the DPC held on 15.06.2011.
25. It is mentioned that according to the CWC, for giving benefit of promotion/restoration, the plaintiff was not actually (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 17 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation working as DGM (G) on 15.06.2011, but on the other hand the CWC re-fixed the pay of the plaintiff in the post and pay scale of DGM (G) w.e.f. 04.05.2010 through Part-II Office Order dated 06.07.2015. As such, to deny promotion/restoration to the plaintiff the CWC were taking contradictory, illogical, unjustified and irrational stands.
26. Thereafter, the plaintiff applied for Earned Leave (hereinafter known as "EL") encashment for the year 2015, as per the extent rules, for 105 days. The EL encashment for 103 days was, however, sanctioned by the CWC vide Sanction Order dated 24.09.2015. The plaintiff through his note/ endorsement dated 29.09.2015 requested the salary section of the CWC that the amount towards the aforesaid leave encashment of 103 days EL may be deposited in the CPF account of the plaintiff as his Voluntary Contribution. The concerned officers of the CWC, however, without any intimation to the plaintiff, withheld the amount of said duly sanctioned EL encashment and did not deposit the same to the CPF account of the plaintiff. Such an action on the part of the concerned officers of the CWC was arbitrary as the concerned officers of the CWC are required to release personal payments of the employees within one week from the date of issue of the Sanction Order. The plaintiff accordingly made representations to the CWC vide his letters dated 09.12.2015, 15.01.2016, 16.02.2016 and 11.03.2016, but none of these letters of the plaintiff have ever been responded to/ (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 18 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation replied to by the CWC and the amount of said EL encashment duly sanctioned by the CWC was never credited to the CPF account of the plaintiff. CWC issued the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2016 delivered to the plaintiff in the afternoon of 22.02.2016, requiring the plaintiff to show cause as to why recovery of Rs. 21,53,069/- be not effected from the salary, leave encashment etc., of the plaintiff and for this, the plaintiff was given 7 days' time. The plaintiff submitted a detailed reply to the impugned Show Cause Notice vide his letter dated 25.02.2016 citing several grounds, followed by another letter dated 29.02.2016 containing an additional ground and disputed all the claims/ contentions of the CWC and pleaded that the Show Cause Notice was not in order, nor any recovery was permissible under the law nor any recovery was justified in the fact and circumstances and requested the CWC to withdraw the Show Cause Notice.
27. The plaintiff submitted that the CWC was fully aware that:
(a) the plaintiff was due to retire within one year i.e. on 30.11.2016;
(b) as per the alleged Due Drawn Statement annexed to the impugned Show Cause Notice the amounts allegedly shown as recoverable from the plaintiff were from May 2010 onwards i.e. involving a period in excess of five years;
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 19 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation
(c) from 04.05.2010 to 17.04.2013, the plaintiff was made to discharge the duties of higher post of OSD (Recovery) which was in lieu of the post of Secretary and was paid his salary accordingly; and
(d) from 17.04.2013 to till his superannuation on 30.11.2016, the plaintiff has been made to discharge the duties of the higher post of OSD (Recovery) but has been paid salary in the lower pay scale of DGM (G) since July 2013 overlooking the principle of 'Equal Work Equal Pay'.
28. The CWC, however, ignoring the replies furnished by the plaintiff vide his letters dated 25.02.2016 and 29.02.2016 to the Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2016, issued the impugned order/letter dated 28.03.2016, by which the CWC merely informed the plaintiff that "a recovery to the tune of 2/3rd amount from your monthly salary and complete EL encashment of 103 days applied by you is being adjusted against the said recoverable amount". It is averred that the impugned order/letter dated 28.03.2016 clearly shows a pre- determination of mind on the part of the authorities of the CWC and seeking replies from the plaintiff by issuing the impugned Show Cause Notice was a mere formality and an eye wash. The impugned order/letter dated 28.03.2016 is very cryptic, non-reasoned and non-speaking and signifies total non-application of mind and has not taken into consideration the replies submitted by the plaintiff vide his letters dated 25.02.2016 and 29.02.2016, in as much as there is no (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 20 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation mention in the impugned order/letter dated 28.03.2016 of the replies submitted by the plaintiff in this regard.
29. The plaintiff further submits that in pursuance of the impugned Show Cause Notice and the impugned letter dated 28.03.2016, the CWC recovered a total amount of Rs. 9,67,775/- from the plaintiff up to November, 2016. The plaintiff further submits that the alleged recovery in terms of impugned Order/Letter dated 28.03.2016 from the salary and leave encashment etc. of the plaintiff has caused undue and extreme hardship to the plaintiff as nothing was paid to the plaintiff except the regular monthly salary and that too on reduced pay after giving effect of three penalties which had already resulted in short payment of salary by more than Rs. 70,000/- per month. It is averred that the above action and all other actions of the CWC in this regard are vitiated in view of the legal principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Shukla & Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785, which reads thus:
"The principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself".
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 21 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation
30. The CWC issued the Impugned Part-II Office Order dated 04.08.2016 as per which the date of implementation of the Two penalties namely IPCL case and LWBs case has been changed from 04.05.2010 to 17.04.2013, and thereby the pay of the plaintiff has been re-fixed. The Impugned Part-II Office Order dated 04.08.2016 has been issued by the CWC in supersession of the earlier Part-II Office Order dated 06.07.2015.
31. The plaintiff further submits that as is mentioned in the Impugned Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2016 itself, the very basis of issuing the Impugned Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2016 by the CWC asking the plaintiff to show cause as to why recovery of Rs. 21,53,069/- be not effected from his salary, leave encashment etc. was gone. The plaintiff submits that with the supersession of Part-II office order dated 06.07.2015, through the Impugned Part-II Office Order dated 04.08.2016 issued by the CWC, the very basis of having issued the Impugned Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2016 is gone. As such, the Impugned Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2016 and the consequentially issued Impugned letter/order of recovery dated 28.03.2016 for alleged recovery of Rs. 21,53,069/- from the plaintiff have become in-fructuous and non-est. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus is applicable, meaning thereby, in case a foundation is removed, the superstructure falls.
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 22 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation
32. Reliance has been placed upon Badrinath vs Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle of consequential order which is applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, is equally applicable to administrative orders.
33. Therefore, the plaintiff avers that all the consequential acts, actions, orders as a result of the Impugned Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2016 including the impugned Letter/Order of recovery dated 28.03.2016 and the adjustment/ recovery of the entire amount of Rs. 9,67,775/- made from the plaintiff have become in-fructuous and non-est. Accordingly, the plaintiff made representations dated 09.08.2016, 31.08.2016, 04.10.2016, 24.10.2016 and 31.10.2016 and requested to the CWC for making no further deductions and to refund the already deducted amounts to the plaintiff along with interest at CPF rates, terms and conditions or else to deposit the entire amount along with interest at CPF rates, terms and conditions in the CPF account of the plaintiff as voluntary contribution. However, no action was taken.
34. The plaintiff further submits that through the Impugned Part-II Office Order dated 04.08.2016, the CWC has given effect (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 23 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation to the three penalties imposed in the three cases, namely, IPA case, IPCL case and LWBs case and has denoted these penalties as Penalty-I, Penalty-II and Penalty-III respectively. These penalties are as under:-
(i) IPA Case (Penalty-I):- "the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of three years without cumulative effect in the time scale of pay, presently being drawn by him be imposed on Shri Batra. This would not have any effect on his retirement benefits. This order will come into effect immediately."
This order of penalty was passed by the DA (EC) on 12.01.2011 and was communicated vide Memorandum dated 14.01.2011. Vide Impugned Part-II Office Order dated 04.08.2016, this penalty has been implemented w.e.f. 12.01.2011.
(ii) IPCL Case (Penalty-II):-"to impose a major penalty of reduction to the immediate lower post of Manager (General), until found fit by Competent authority for promotion to next higher post. Seniority to be fixed as per rules."
This order of penalty was passed by the DA (BOD) on 29.11.2006 and was communicated vide Memorandum dated 04.05.2010. The post of Manager (General) has been re-designated as DGM (G) by 31st Amendment Regulations, 2006. Vide Impugned Part-II Office Order (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 24 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation dated 04.08.2016, this penalty has been implemented w.e.f. 17.04.2013.
(iii) LWB Case (Penalty-III):- "to impose the penalty of reduction of one stage in the time scale of pay applicable on the date of issue of the penalty order for a period of three years, with a further direction that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay." This order of penalty was passed by DA (BOD) on 10.06.2008 and was communicated vide Memorandum dated 04.05.2010. Vide Impugned Part-II Office Order dated 04.08.2016, this penalty has been implemented w.e.f. 17.04.2013.
35. The plaintiff further submits that the Impugned Part-II Office Order dated 04.08.2016 deals with the implementation of the above-mentioned three penalties imposed upon the plaintiff. The imposition of these penalties are under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of WP(C) Nos. 795/2014, 8092/2014 and 8091/2014 respectively. The plaintiff further submits that the issue in the present suit is about the implementation of the three penalties, whether done correctly or not. It is averred that imposition of penalty and implementation of penalty are two separate and distinct matters. He submits that the (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 25 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation perusal of the Impugned Part-II Office Order dated 04.08.2016 shows that there are serious discrepancies in it in re-fixing the pay of the plaintiff and that these penalties imposed upon the plaintiff have not been implemented correctly. Accordingly, the plaintiff made representation dated 10.08.2016, pointing out serious discrepancies in Impugned Part-II Office Order dated 04.08.2016 and requested to the CWC to remove the same due to which the implementation of the three penalties have become defective, faulty and incorrect and to re-fix the pay of the plaintiff correctly and neither has any action been taken, nor has any reply been given on plaintiff's representation dated 10.08.2016 and nor has the pay of the plaintiff been re-fixed after removing the discrepancies by the CWC.
36. It is averred that in Penalty-II (IPCL case), it is very clear that a condition or direction has been imposed by the DA (BOD) and the said condition or direction is "until found fit by competent authority for promotion to next higher post". By using the word "until", the DA (BOD) has made its intent clear that the said penalty shall end the moment the condition 'found fit for promotion' is satisfied. The meaning of the word 'until' as per Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary is 'up to the point in time or the event mentioned'. Even in terms of Regulation 59 (vii) (25th Amendment), the DA (BOD) was empowered to and could lay/impose a condition or direction necessarily and only with regard to restoration to the grade or post or service from which (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 26 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation the plaintiff was reduced. There was no power to go beyond what is provided in the Regulation 59 (vii) (25th Amendment), and the DA (BOD) could lay any condition or direction which was strictly in consonance with the said Regulation 59 (vii) (25th Amendment) and not any condition or direction which is contrary to this Regulation. Thus, the condition or direction imposed by the DA (BOD) in Penalty-II in this regard shall have necessarily and compulsorily to be reckoned or assumed to be the condition/ direction for restoration of the plaintiff to the post of Secretary and nothing else. According to Penalty-II, although the penalty of reduction imposed upon the plaintiff is not for a certain specified period yet the said penalty is not permanent and is only up to the period when the condition/direction as mentioned in Penalty-II is satisfied/ fulfilled i.e, the penalty of reduction should come to an end the moment the condition/ direction as mentioned in Penalty- II is satisfied/fulfilled. Thus, in other words, once the said condition/direction was satisfied, the plaintiff was to be restored with the grade or post or service from which he was reduced/ reverted. It may kindly be appreciated that for non-satisfaction of the said condition/ direction, there must be legally permissible reasons, duly placed on record and should have been duly communicated to the plaintiff and in the absence of which, the said condition/ direction is assumed to have been satisfied and accordingly, the plaintiff was to be restored with the grade or post or service from which he was reduced.
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 27 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation
37. The plaintiff further averred in his plaint that as per impugned Part-II Office Order dated 04.08.2016, the plaintiff has been reduced/ reverted from the post of Secretary to the post of DGM (G) w.e.f. 17.04.2013 in terms of Penalty-II but thereafter, the actions, if any, taken by the CWC with regard to the satisfaction or otherwise of the condition/ direction as mentioned in Penalty-II have not been intimated to the plaintiff nor has he been restored to the post of Secretary till date nor has he been informed about the satisfaction or otherwise of the condition/ direction by the competent authority as mentioned in Penalty-II nor has he been informed as to what were the legally acceptable reasons if the competent authority is not satisfied about the condition/ direction as mentioned in Penalty-II, despite several representations dated 16.01.2015, 20.02.2015, 28.07.2015, 29.07.2015 and 29.04.2016 made by the plaintiff.
38. The condition/direction put by the DA (BOD) in Penalty- II, with regard to the fitness for promotion, for its satisfaction or otherwise, relevant rules with regard to promotion need to be traced. Regulation 9 read with 21st amendment, provides for the procedure for promotion that promotion in respect of Selection Posts specified in Appendix-II shall be made mutatis-mutandis as per procedure prescribed in the instructions issued by the Central Government from time to time for its corresponding selection (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 28 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation posts after their adoption by the BOD and also provides that all promotions shall be considered by a Selection Committee (DPC) duly constituted by the Appointing Authority. Further, as per Appendix-II of the regulations, the post of GM (G) and the post of Secretary are specified as Selection Posts.
39. It is also very clear from the proceedings of the DPCs dated 20.06.2013, 28.08.2014, 25.06.2015 and 18.05.2016 for promotion to the post of GM (G) for the years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively, obtained by the plaintiff under the RTI Act, that the CWC has been following the DOPT's guidelines in the matter of procedure for promotion in terms of Regulation 9 read with 21st amendment and the instructions issued by the Central Government from time to time/ DOPT's guidelines in the matter of procedure for promotion are, thus, part of the statutory regulations and are, as such, mandatorily binding on the CWC.
40. The plaintiff has further averred in his plaint that the WP(C) Nos. 795/2014, 8092/2014 and 8091/2014 with regard to Penalty-1, Penalty-II and Penalty-III respectively, are pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, but the issue in the present suit is about the implementation of the three penalties whether done correctly or not. Having said so, in the given situation, since 12.01.2011, no departmental proceedings were pending against the plaintiff.
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 29 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation
41. It is averred that the currency of punishment of Penalty-I, which was implemented w.e.f. 12.01.2011, was three years and as such the same was over by 11.01.2014; Penalty-II is for reduction/ reversion to the lower grade/post and contains a condition 'until found fit for promotion' and has been implemented w.e.f. 17.04.2013 vide Impugned Part-II Office Order dated 04.08.2016. Further, Penalty-III is dated 04.05.2010 and remained under eclipse due to the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and has been implemented w.e.f. 17.04.2013 vide Impugned Part-II Office Order dated 04.08 2016. Penalty-III has a currency of punishment of three years.
42. It is further averred that Hon'ble Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the matter of Union of India and Ors. vs. Duli Chand in WP (C) No. 985/2010 (judgment pronounced on 07.12.2010), dealt with a similar type of matter where the penalty order was stayed and later on the stay was vacated and with a similar nature of penalty like Penalty-III in the present case, where the penalty order had various manifestations in its applicability such as forfeiture in monetary terms/ forfeiture of increments and other service related issues including consideration for promotion etc. etc. and held as under:-
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 30 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation "13. The reason is that it would be an extremely unjust situation and may be held to be unreasonable if the effect of the penalty is disproportionate to the penalty. As in the instant case, the penalty remained eclipsed for three years and if given effect to after three years would mean that not only for the preceding three years after eclipse was over but even for the next two years the delinquent would be ineligible to be considered for promotion and further when he would become eligible to be considered for promotion, for the next five years the penalty would stand in his way. This may borderline on double jeopardy, though not strictly a case of double jeopardy.
14. Thus, the distinction between an order's existence de jure and de facto has to be kept in mind For and in relation to penalty order of the kind we are dealing we hold that for purposes of giving effect to the penalty a hiatus has to be drawn qua the factum of the increments to be stopped and the existence of the penalty order for purposes of other service related issues and in particular consideration of the ACR record of the respondent at the DPCS post 2.5.2003. For the purposes of DPCs post 2.5.2003 i.e. the date of the penalty order, the same has to be treated as effective from 2.5.2003 which would be the date wherefrom two years would reckon as a bar to consider the candidature of the respondent for further promotion, and beyond two years of 2.5.2003, such DPCs which have to consider the preceding five year ACR record would take into account the penalty if the year 2003 is a part of the preceding five years' period. Thus, the de facto coupled with de jure implementation of the penalty order, in harmony with the Doctrine of Eclipse, would require the penalty to be given effect to after the eclipse was over and the penalty order resurrected and for which we hold that the two increments which the respondent has to forfeit would be the ones which he had earned on the dates after 21.4.2006."
43. It is averred that it would be reasonable, logical and justified to rely upon this judgment for the limited purposes of (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 31 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation deciding the effective dates of Penalty-III for its various manifestations as otherwise, its effect in the present case would turn out to be disproportionate as imposed by the DA (BOD). As such, in the case of Penalty-III in the present case, the effective date for the purposes of inflicting monetary loss in the form of reduction by one stage in the relevant time scale of pay and withholding of future increments has to be taken as 17.04.2013, but for the purposes of consideration for promotion, the effective date has to be taken as 04.05.2010. The currency of punishment of three years for the purposes of consideration for promotion in the case of Penalty-III in the present case would, thus, be over by 03.05.2013.
44. From the above position, the plaintiff submits that the currency of all punishment orders in the case of plaintiff was over by 11.01.2014. The plaintiff further avers that there was absolutely no valid reason, in view of the under-mentioned DOPT's guidelines, with the CWC to not consider the plaintiff for promotion and to not declare him fit for promotion even on the expiry of the currency of all penalty orders i.e. by 11.01.2014. It is further averred that by not considering the plaintiff for promotion, by not declaring him fit for promotion, and by not restoring him to the post from which he was reduced/reverted w.e.f. 12.01.2014, the provisions of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India have been violated by the CWC as the (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 32 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation plaintiff has been penalized twice for the same alleged crime or offence.
45. The plaintiff submits that as per the regulations of the CWC, the post of DGM (G) to which the plaintiff has been reduced/ reverted in terms of Penalty-II (IPCL case), has two channels of promotion and is the feeder grade for the post of Secretary as also for the post of GM (G). The name of the plaintiff, thus, ought to have been considered by the CWC for all year-wise DPCs for the post of Secretary as also for the post of GM (G), keeping in mind that since 12.01.2011, no departmental proceedings were pending against him and that he has been reduced/ reverted from the post of Secretary to the post of DGM (G) on 17.04.2013 and further, that the currency of all punishment orders in his case was over by 11.01.2014. In other words, the name of the plaintiff ought to have been considered for all year-wise DPCs for the post of Secretary as also for the post of GM (G) starting with the year 2013-14 and onwards year- wise and the plaintiff ought to have been restored with the post or service or grade or time scale of pay from which he was reduced/reverted to the post of Secretary w.e.f. 12.01.2014 if otherwise found fit for promotion or if there was no legally permissible reason to hold him unfit for promotion.
46. The plaintiff submits that whether a person is found to be 'fit' or 'not fit' for promotion can be decided only if he has been (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 33 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation considered for promotion. Moreover, the condition/ mandate given by DA (BOD)in Penalty-II itself mandated the CWC/ DPCs to consider the name of the plaintiff at every year/ at every occasion/ at every DPC right after the day on which the reduction/ reversion has been made applicable i.e. w.e.f. 17.04.2013. The plaintiff most humbly submits that no person can be held to be 'not fit' without placing lawful reasons for the same on record and which should have been duly communicated to the plaintiff.
47. Further, it is submitted that it is seen from the record of DPCs proceedings dated 20.06.2013, 28.08.2014, 25.06.2015 and 18.05.2016 for promotion to the post of GM (G) for the years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively, obtained under the RTI Act, that the position recorded in these proceedings with regard to the Annual Confidential Reports/ Annual Performance Reports (hereinafter known as "ACRs/APRs") of the plaintiff is absolutely false and factually incorrect. This also shows that correct picture in this regard was not placed before these DPCs and it smacks of concealment, suppression and distortion of facts by the concerned personnel of the CWC for the reasons best known to them. Despite the fact that the plaintiff submitted the factual position with regard to his ACRs to the CWC with the request to take corrective actions and also to institute a fair, impartial and thorough probe into this matter and to bring those guilty to the book, the plaintiff most humbly (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 34 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation submits that the CWC has taken no corrective action in this matter nor has the CWC instituted a probe to ascertain the facts and truth and to bring the guilty to the book. Before presenting the factual matrix with regard to the ACRs of the plaintiff, it would be appropriate to look at the relevant instructions including the prescribed drill as were applicable for writing the ACRs.
48. The relevant instructions in this regard are Office Order No. CWC/IV-5/Estt. dated 07/24.02.1984, amended by Office Order dated 18.01.1985 and further amended by Office Order dated 08.01.1986 and Circular No. CWC/IV-ACRDrill/CRC(Vol.II)/2013-14 dated 09.10.2013. These Office Orders/ Circular inter-alia contain the following notable features:-
(a) These Office Orders/ Circular lay down the procedure for writing, reviewing and countersigning of ACRs of Officers and Staff of CWC and prescribe the relevant authorities as to who will be the Reporting Officer, Reviewing Officer and Countersigning Officer for different posts.
(b) These Office Orders/ Circulars require that the procedure detailed in the enclosed statement will be observed/seek necessary compliance with effect from the year/date as mentioned therein.
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 35 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation
(c) These Office Orders/ Circular state that this is in supersession of all earlier orders/ instructions on the subject.
(d) Circular dated 09.10.2013 admits that the instructions for writing ACRs have not been revised for quite some time and that the positions in the CWC at various levels have undergone major changes during last few years.
(e) Circular dated 09.10.2013 also states that in case of any confusion/ clarification, the matter may be referred to the Corporate Office of the CWC.
49. The plaintiff submits that although the DOPT guidelines in the matter of writing the ACRs have never been adopted by the CWC and the CWC has been prescribing its own executive instructions in this regard with the prior approval of its BOD, yet General Manager (Personnel) of the CWC vide his letter no. CWC/IV-PMS/CRC/2015-16/581D dated 11.07.2016 issued the instructions which inter-alia state as under-
"In this regard, DOPT guidelines also clearly states that the Annual Report should be recorded within one month of expiry of the report period. Any delay in this regard should be adversely commented upon. If there is delay in submission of self-appraisal by the officer reported upon, the Reporting Officer should give the report without self appraisal, making a suitable note.
It is, therefore, requested to adhere to above mentioned provision and ensure that the APRs are closed at the end of every financial year and dispatched latest by 15th April to the Corporate Office, in order to streamline the process of (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 36 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation recording and completion of APRs within stipulated time limit."
50. The plaintiff further submitted that the above instructions issued by the CWC make following three things fundamentally clear - (a) ACRs are to be written only by the officers as laid down/as named in the applicable prescribed drill as Reporting Officer, Reviewing Officer and Countersigning Officer; (b) The self appraisal, if any, is to be submitted by the Officer reported upon only to the Reporting Officer as -prescribed/ as named in the prescribed drill; and (c) The ACRs can be written by the Reporting Officer as prescribed/ as named in the prescribed drill even without self appraisal.
51. The plaintiff also submits that it is a fundamental rule that the preparation, completion and maintenance of ACRs is the responsibility of the management and that the ACRs are to be written, reviewed and counter-signed by the Reporting Officer, Reviewing Officer and Counter-signing Officer respectively as prescribed/ as named in the relevant rules/ prescribed drill for writing the ACRs irrespective of the fact whether the officer to be reported upon submits the self appraisal to the Reporting Officer or not.
52. The plaintiff further submits that the impugned proceedings of all the four DPCs are unfair, arbitrary, defective, illegal and unconstitutional, particularly with regard to the (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 37 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation consideration of the name of plaintiff and nothing adverse has ever been communicated to the plaintiff on account of ACRs let alone the non-availability of ACRs and no any opportunity has ever been given to the plaintiff to present his case. It is, thus, very clear that these DPCs/ competent authority have not discharged their responsibility properly, in all fairness and in accordance with the law and the statutory provisions and as such their impugned proceedings/ final decisions are vitiated, unfair, arbitrary, defective, illegal and unconstitutional. The 2 nd part of Penalty-II (IPCL case) has not been implemented and the actions taken being legally impermissible/ legally untenable, the effect of Penalty-II on its implementation has become unjust, unreasonable and disproportionate to the actual penalty imposed by DA (BOD). It is submitted that the converse of 'found fit' is 'found unfit' and now if there is nothing on record as per which the plaintiff has been found unfit for promotion in terms of the legally permissible/ tenable grounds/ factors, the 1st part of Penalty-II should come to an end looking at the nature and character of the penalty as per which the reduction was until found fit, and that there was nothing on record (no valid reason) to hold the plaintiff unfit and accordingly, the plaintiff should have been restored with the grade or post or service from which he was reduced/ reverted, w.e.f. 12.01.2014.
53. Although, as reflected in the Impugned Part-II Office Order dated 04.08.2016, in terms of Penalty-II, the plaintiff has (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 38 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation been reverted to the post of DGM (G) w.e.f. 17.04.2013, yet there has been no change in his job responsibilities as the plaintiff has been made to continue to work (since 12.02.2009) on the same post of OSD (Recovery) with same job responsibilities even after 17.04.2013 till his superannuation on 30.11.2016. Since, the plaintiff continued to work on the same post of OSD (Recovery) and discharged the same responsibilities, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the full back wages on his restoration to the grade or post or service from which he was reduced/ reverted. In terms of the statement given by the CWC in this Hon'ble Court on 02.02.2009 in LPA No. 86/2007, the CWC considered the post of OSD (Recovery) as an appropriate post in lieu of the post of Secretary held by the plaintiff in substantive capacity and posted him to work as OSD (Recovery) and assigned the Pay Scale of Rs.37,400-67,000/-with Grade Pay of Rs.8,700/- in the CDA pattern of pay scales i.e. the same pay scale as attached to the post of Secretary and the plaintiff was accordingly paid the salary w.e.f. 12.02.2009 in the said pay scale of Rs.37,400-67,000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.8,700/- (CDA). From 12.02.2009 to till his superannuation on 30.11.2016, the plaintiff has been made to work as OSD (Recovery). Although, as reflected in the Impugned Part-II Office Order dated 04.08.2016, in terms of Penalty-II, the plaintiff has been reverted to the post of DGM (G) w.e.f. 17.04.2013 and his pay and perks have been regulated as per the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100/- with Grade Pay of Rs.7,600/- assigned to the post of DGM (G) w.e.f. 17.04.2013, yet there has (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 39 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation been no change in the job responsibilities of the plaintiff as he has been made to continue to work on the same post of OSD (Recovery) even after 17.04.2013 to till his superannuation on 30.11.2016. Thus, the penalty of reduction to the lower grade w.e.f. 17.04.2013 has been implemented by the CWC only in financial terms by paying lesser pay and perks to the plaintiff but not in respect of his work responsibilities and the working post which continues to be the same i.e. OSD (Recovery). The CWC is not at liberty to take the same work or ask an officer to continue to work on the same post with same responsibilities even after his reduction/ reversion to the lower post or grade or pay scale and against payment of salary in the lower grade as it infringes his rights. Hence, in such cases, the principle of 'Equal Work Equal Pay' shall apply.
54. The plaintiff submits that the procedure adopted by the CWC is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and other statutes. Accordingly, the plaintiff made a representation dated 15.11.2016 to the CWC explaining the facts and the position of law, and made prayers but the CWC gave no reply nor re-fixed the pay of the plaintiff in accordance with the law, nor initiated any proceedings for recovery of any amount in pursuance of the impugned Office Order dated 04.08.2016 and thereby, grossly violated the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 09.11.2016 by personal delivery and the same was duly received and (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 40 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation acknowledged by the defendant on 09.11.2016 itself, however, the defendant failed to give any reply to the said legal notice. Hence, the present suit.
55. The cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant when the defendant passed illegal orders and the same are in continuation. The cause of action further accrued when the defendant passed Part-II Office Order dated 04.08.2016 as per which the defendant re-fixed the pay of the plaintiff and in doing so, the defendant implemented all the three penalties imposed upon the plaintiff incorrectly and partly and not in accordance with the law. The cause of action has also accrued when the defendant made illegal recoveries from the monthly salary, leave encashment etc., of the plaintiff by issuing show cause notice dated 19.02.2016 and order of recovery dated 28.03.2016, both of which were not only illegal but had also become in-fructuous on defendant's passing the Part-II Office Order dated 04.08.2016. The cause of action has also accrued due to defendant denying the benefits/ claims to the plaintiff under the CDA pay Pattern despite having restored the CDA Pay Pattern vide Part-II Office Order dated 04.08.2016. The cause of action has further accrued on defendant's passing illegal orders vide letter No. CWC/I-5332/Estt/195E dated 08.11.2016. The cause of action has further accrued on defendant's making illegal recoveries from the plaintiff and through the illegal means without following the procedure recognized by the law till the (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 41 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation end of November, 2016. The cause of action has further accrued in favour of the plaintiff, when the plaintiff got issued a legal notice and the same was duly received and acknowledged by the defendant and the defendant has failed to give any reply even till today.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
56. After institution of the suit, summons was issued to the defendant. The defendant appeared before the Court and filed written statement. In its written statement, the defendant has taken several preliminary objections. It reveals that in pursuance to the powers conferred by Regulation 18 of the Central Warehousing Corporation (General) Regulation, 1965 on the Managing Director, the Managing Director of the Corporation has authorized all the General Managers, Deputy General Managers, Superintending Engineers at Corporate office and all the Regional Managers at the regional office, all Superintending Engineers/Executive Engineers working in the Construction cells of the Corporation to sign and verify the Plaints, Written Statement, petitions, Vakalatnama, affidavits Customs and other related documents connected with legal proceedings filed by or against the Corporation on behalf of the Corporation vide office order No. CWC/XVI-2/DOP-MD/2014 dated 18th November 2014. It is averred that Shri P.K. Saw, DGM (Personnel) was handed over the charge of personnel division vide office order (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 42 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation dated 16.11.2016. Shri P.K. Saw DGM (Personnel) was to discharge all the duties of GM (Personnel) and exercise administrative and financial power of GM (Personnel) apart from the duties already allotted to him.
57. Defendant denied each and every averment made in the present suit except for those which are not specifically admitted by the answering defendant. It is averred in the WS that the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary party to this suit. It is submitted that the suit has also not been properly valued for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction and court fees and suit is barred under the provisions of Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act as the subject matter of suit is relating to service matter for which special Courts/tribunals has been established. Hence, the suit is not maintainable in this Court. On facts, there are various submissions in the WS, however, the same are not being reproduced for brevity and shall be considered in the discussion/reasoning part of the judgment.
REPLICATION
58. Replication was filed on behalf of plaintiff wherein he denied the claims made by the defendant and reiterated the averments made in the plaint.
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 43 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation ISSUES
59. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 03.07.2018:
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration that the show cause notice dated 19.02.2016 and order of recovery vide letter dated 28.03.2016 issued by the defendant for recovery of Rs.21,53,069/- from the plaintiff, and the recovery made by the defendant pursuant thereto are illegal and void? OPP ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration that the letter dated 08.11.2016 issued by the defendant, and the recovery made by the defendant from the plaintiff pursuant thereto are illegal and void? OPP iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed in prayer clause (e), (f) & (g)? OPP iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed in prayer clause (h), (i) &
(j)? OPP v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to refund monies recovered from the plaintiff in terms of show cause notice dated 19.02.2016, (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 44 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation letter dated 28.03.2016 and letter dated 08.11.2016, alongwith interest? OPP vi. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction directing the defendant to pay salary and back wages to the plaintiff as prayed in prayer clause (l)?
vii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed in prayer clause (m)? OPP viii. Whether the plaintiff has approached the court with unclean hands and has suppressed material facts from the court? OPD ix. Whether the suit has not been properly valued and court fees filed is insufficient? OPD x. Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act? OPD xi. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form on account of mis-joinder of cause of action? OPD xii. Whether the written statement of the defendant has not been filed and signed by its duly authorized representative?
xiii. Relief.
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 45 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation
60. Vide order dated 23.08.2024, two additional issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor:-
i. Whether the suit of the plaintiff has not been properly valued and plaintiff has not paid appropriate court fees? OPD ii. If so, whether this court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
61. Plaintiff in support of his case, has placed on record his affidavit vide Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
Sl. Exhibits/Mark Details of Documents No. 1. Ex. PW1/1 Relevant Extracts of Sections (colly.) 2(b), 2(c), 2(f), 2(1), 3, 6, 10(1), 10(2) & 42 of The Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962. 2. Ex. PW1/2 Relevant Extracts of Regulations (colly.) 1(3), 9. relevant extracts of Appendix-II, 21st Amendment, Regulation 59 as amended by 25th Amendment, and relevant extracts of 26 Amendment, 31st th Amendment of the CWC (Staff) Regulations, 1986 3. Ex. PW1/3 Plaintiff's Appointment Letter as (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 46 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation Manager (General) 4. Ex. PW1/4 Plaintiff's Promotion Order as Secretary 5. Ex. PW1/5 Selection Committee / Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings dated 20.01.2004 6. Ex. PW1/6 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi order dated 30.09.2005 in WP(C) No. 142/2005 7. Ex. PW1/7 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi order dated 30.09.2005 in WP(C) No. 143/2005 8. Ex. PW1/8 Plaintiff's transfer order dated 01.12.2006. 9. Ex. PW1/9 Office Order dated 21.08.2007. 10. Ex. PW1/10 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi order dated 02.02.2009 in LPA No. 86/2007. 11. Ex. PW1/11 Office order dated 09.02.2009. 12. Ex. PW1/12 Office order dated 16.03.2009. 13. Ex. PW1/13 Salary slip for the month of November, 2011 14. Ex. PW1/14 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi order dated 04.05.2010 in WP (C) No. 142/2005 15. Ex. PW1/15 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi order dated 04.05.2010 in WP (C) (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 47 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation No. 143/2005. 16. Ex. PW1/16 Memorandum No. CWC/XIII- 12/101/2000/AV/619/658D dated 04.05.2010. 17. Ex. PW1/17 Office order no. CWC/I-5332/Estt./958A dated 05.05.2010 in IPCL case. 18. Ex. PW1/18 Memorandum No. CWC/XIII- 8/202/99/AV/620/659D dated 04.05.2010 in LWB case. 19. Ex. PW1/19 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi order dated 06.05.2010 in WP (C) No. 142/2005. 20. Ex. PW1/20 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi order dated 06.05.2010 in WP (C) No. 143/2005. 21. Ex. PW1/21 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi order dated 14.07.2010 in WP (C) Nos. 142/2005 & 143/2005. 22. Ex. PW1/22 Memorandum No. CWC/X-III- 12/132/2006/AV/78 dated 14.01.2011 23. Ex. PW1/23 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi order dated 02.09.2016 in WP (C) No. 795/2014 24. Ex. PW1/24 Office order No. CWC/I-CDA- Switch over-IDA/Rectt/2009/842A dated 02.12.2011 25. Ex. PW1/25 Office Order dated 21.12.2011. 26. Ex. PW1/26 Office Order dated 29.02.2012 27. Ex. PW1/27 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi order dated 02.09.2016 in WP (C) No. 7329/2012 (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 48 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation 28. Ex. PW1/28 Office Order dated 17.04.2013 29. Ex. PW1/29 Office Order dated 17.04.2013 30. Ex. PW1/30 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi order dated 17.08.2015 in WP (C) Nos. 8092/2014 and 8091/2014 31. Ex. PW1/31 Salary slip for the month of December, 2011 32. Ex. PW1/32 Salary slip for the month of June, 2013 33. Ex. PW1/33 Part-II Office order dated 19.06.2013. 34. Ex. PW1/34 Salary slip for the month of July, 2013. 35. Ex. PW1/35 Office order No. CWC/I-CDA- Switch over-IDA/Rectt./2012-13 dated 28.05.2014. 36. Ex. PW1/36 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi order dated 17.07.2014 in WP(C) No. 8920/2011 37. Ex. PW1/37 Part-II Office order dated 06.07.2015 38. Ex. PW1/38 Salary slip for the month of June, 2015 39. Ex. PW1/39 Salary slip for the month of July, 2015 40. Ex. PW1/40 Plaintiff's letter dated 07.08.2015. 41. Ex. PW1/41 Plaintiff's letter dated 16.01.2015 42. Ex. PW1/42 CWC letter dated 09.07.2015 43. Ex. PW1/43 Sanction Order dated 24.09.2015 and Plaintiff's endorsement dated 29.09.2015. 44. Ex. PW1/44 Plaintiff's letter dated 09.12.2015 (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 49 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation 45. Ex. PW1/45 Plaintiff's letter dated 15.01.2016 46. Ex. PW1/46 Plaintiff's letter dated 16.02.2016 47. Ex. PW1/47 Plaintiff's letter dated 11.03.2016 48. Ex. PW1/48 Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2016 along with calculation sheet for recovery of Rs. 21,53,069/- 49. Ex. PW1/49 Plaintiff's letter dated 25.02.2016 50. Ex. PW1/50 Plaintiff's letter dated 29.02.2016 51. Ex. PW1/51 Order/Letter dated 28.03.2016 for recovery of Rs. 21,53,069/- 52. Ex. PW1/52 Salary slip for the month of March, 2016 53. Ex. PW1/53 Salary slip for the month of October, 2016 54. Ex. PW1/54 Salary slip for the month of November, 2016 55. Ex. PW1/55 Plaintiff's letter dated 05.04.2016. 56. Ex. PW1/56 Plaintiff's letter dated 25.04.2016 57. Ex. PW1/57 Plaintiff's letter dated 29.04.2016 58. Ex. PW1/58 Plaintiff's letter dated 02.05.2016 59. Ex. PW1/59 Plaintiff's letter dated 20.07.2016 60. Ex. PW1/60 Office Order dated 04.08.2016 re- fixing the pay of the Plaintiff 61. Ex. PW1/61 Plaintiff's letter dated 09.08.2016 62. Ex. PW1/62 Plaintiff's letter dated 31.08.2016 63. Ex. PW1/63 Plaintiff's letter dated 04.10.2016 64. Ex. PW1/64 Plaintiff's letter dated 24.10.2016 65. Ex. PW1/65 Plaintiff's letter dated 31.10.2016 66. Ex. PW1/66 Form 16 for Assessment Years 2014-15 issued by CWC (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 50 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation 67. Ex. PW1/67 Form 16 for Assessment Years 2016-17 issued by CWC 68. Ex. PW1/68 Plaintiff's letter dated 10.08.2016 69. Ex. PW1/69 Plaintiff's letter dated 01.09.2016 70. Ex. PW1/70 Plaintiff's letter dated 31.08.2016 regarding Leave Encashment of 68 days. 71. Ex. PW1/71 Plaintiff's letter dated 20.02.2015 72. Ex. PW1/72 Plaintiff's letter dated 28.07.2015 73. Ex. PW1/73 Plaintiff's letter dated 29.07.2015 74. Ex. PW1/74 Plaintiff's letter dated 29.04.2016 75. Ex. PW1/75 Record of DPC Proceedings dated 20.06.2013 received under the RTI Act. 76. Ex. PW1/76 Record of DPC Proceedings dated 28.08.2014 received under the RTI Act. 77. Ex. PW1/77 Record of DPC Proceedings dated 25.06.2015 received under the RTI Act. 78. Ex. PW1/78 Record of DPC Proceedings dated 18.05.2016 received under the RTI Act. 79. Ex. PW1/79 Order and judgement dated 07.12.2010 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of UOI and Ors. vs. Duli Chand in WP (C) No. 985/2010 80. Ex. PW1/80 Relevant Extracts of DOPT OM dated 10.04.1989 81. Ex. PW1/81 Relevant Extracts of DOPT OM dated 14.09.1992 82. Ex. PW1/82 Relevant Extracts of DOPT OM (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 51 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation dated 28.04.2014 83. Ex. PW1/83 Relevant Extracts of DOPT OM dated 14.05.2009 84. Ex. PW1/84 RTI Letter dated 29.12.2015 through which rec DPC Proceedings dated 20.06.2013, 28.08.2014 and 25.06.2015 was received. 85. Ex. PW1/85 RTI Letter dated 14.07.2016 through which record of DPC Proceedings dated 18.05.2016 was received. 86. Ex. PW1/86 Office Order dated 07/24.02.1984 87. Ex. PW1/87 Office Order dated 18.01.1985 88. Ex. PW1/88 Office Order dated 08.01.1986 89. Ex. PW1/89 Office Order/ Circular dated 09.10.2013 90. Ex. PW1/90 CWC letter dated 11.07.2016 91. Ex. PW1/91 CWC letter dated 04.07.2008 92. Ex. PW1/92 Plaintiff's letter dated 12.06.2008 93. Ex. PW1/93 Plaintiff's letter dated 04.07.2008 94. Ex. PW1/94 Plaintiff's letter dated 18.07.2008 95. Ex. PW1/95 Plaintiff's letter dated 19.07.2008 96. Ex. PW1/96 Plaintiff's letter dated 11.08.2008 97. Ex. PW1/97 Plaintiff's letter dated 14.08.2008 98. Ex. PW1/98 Plaintiff's letter dated 28.08.2008 99. Ex. PW1/99 Plaintiff's letter dated 22.09.2008 100. Ex. PW1/100 Plaintiff's letter dated 26.09.2008 101. Ex. PW1/101 Plaintiff's letter dated 07.10.2008 102. Ex. PW1/102 Plaintiff's letter dated 29.10.2008 103. Ex. PW1/103 Plaintiff's letter dated 22.12.2008 (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 52 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation 104. Ex. PW1/104 Plaintiff's letter dated 28.01.2009 105. Ex. PW1/105 Orders of MD, CWC dated 19.03.2009 106. Ex. PW1/106 Plaintiff's letter dated 06.04.2009 107. Ex. PW1/107 Plaintiff's letter dated 07.10.2009 108. Ex. PW1/108 CWC letter dated 05.01.1998 109. Ex. PW1/109 CWC letter dated 12.01.1998 110. Ex. PW1/110 Plaintiff's letter dated 07.03.2011 111. Ex. PW1/111 Plaintiff's letter dated 15.04.2011 112. Ex. PW1/112 Plaintiff's letter dated 12.09.2011 113. Ex. PW1/113 Plaintiff's letter dated 16.09.2011 114. Ex. PW1/114 Plaintiff's letter dated 29.09.2011 & 30.09.2011 115. Ex. PW1/115 Plaintiff's letter dated 30.09.2011 116. Ex. PW1/116 Plaintiff's letter dated 26.12.2011 117. Ex. PW1/117 Plaintiff's letter dated 18.09.2012 118. Ex. PW1/118 Plaintiff's letter dated 25.10.2012 119. Ex. PW1/119 Plaintiff's letter dated 02.01.2013 120. Ex. PW1/120 Plaintiff's letter dated 31.01.2013 121. Ex. PW1/121 Plaintiff's letter dated 12.06.2013 122. Ex. PW1/122 Plaintiff's letter dated 19.06.2013 123. Ex. PW1/123 Plaintiff's letter dated 23.05.2014 124. Ex. PW1/124 Plaintiff's letters dated 22.07.2014 125. Ex. PW1/125 Plaintiff's letters dated 10.10.2014 126. Ex. PW1/126 Plaintiff's letters dated 19.01.2015 127. Ex. PW1/127 Plaintiff's letters dated 19.04.2016 (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 53 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation 128. Ex. PW1/128 Note dated 21.10.2013 (from Note dated 07.10.2013) of the Plaintiff along with draft KPAs submitted to Director (Finance), CWC 129. Ex. PW1/129 CWC's letter No. CWC/I-5332/Estt/95E dated 08.11.2016 along with calculation sheet 130. Ex. PW1/130 Plaintiff's letter dated 15.11.2016 131. Ex. PW1/131 Legal notice dated 09.11.2016
62. The said witness was duly examined-in-chief by Ld. Counsel for the defendant at length. PW1 admitted in his cross- examination that two charge sheets dated 03.03.2004 in respect of BPC and dated 13.08.04 in respect of LWB were issued and one more charge sheet dated 21-23.01.09 was issued for minor penalty proceedings for alleged IPA case. He further deposed that he filed two writ petitions challenging the said charge sheets dated 03.03.04 & 13.08.04 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He admitted that both the writ petitions were dismissed vide a detailed order. He also admitted that LPA and SLP against the order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi were also dismissed (dismissed in limine). He has also challenged the implementation of the penalty orders qua the two charge sheets before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and he further deposed that if the WPs are allowed, then the present suit will become infructuous. He admitted that he had received the salary as the Secretary up-to June 2013 and there is no dispute qua the salary as Secretary up-
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 54 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation to 17.04.13. He further admitted that all the officers of CWC were shifted to IDA pay scale vide office order 02.12.11 and the said order was w.e.f. 28.03.1990 and he had challenged the said order before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and subsequently on 28.05.14, the management issued another order dated 28.05.14 superseding the order dated 02.12.11 and the IDA Pay Scale was made optional and voluntary. He did not opt for the same. The pay fixation was done on CDA giving effect from 28.03.1990. He did not opt for IDA. It is also admitted that the initial recovery of Rs. 21,53,069 vide show cause notice dated 19.02.16 has been withdrawn and modified, however, he deposed that no show cause notice was issued and principles of natural justice were not followed while making the modified recovery. He admitted that the recovery of Rs. 21,53,069/- was modified to Rs.9,67,775/- on the basis of his pay fixed on CDA pay scale vide office order dated 04.08.16 and no procedure was followed for the same and his representations with regard to wrong implementation of penalty orders were never considered. He further deposed that he was posted to work as Regional Manager, Chandigarh from 22.12.06 to 11.02.09 but he was paid the salary of Secretary and his substantive post to work at Chandigarh was that of Secretary. It is also admitted that any officer of the corporation i.e. DGM, GM or the Secretary or any other officer can be posted as Regional Manager, but will draw the salary against the substantive post. He further deposed that while he was holding the substantive post of secretary, the Hon'ble High (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 55 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation Delhi had directed CWC to create an equivalent post in view of the statement of CWC and that is how the post of OSD recovery was created. He was being paid the salary of secretary when he was posted as the OSD recovery till 17.04.13. He admitted that a govt. notification is issued for creation of any post in CWC and no post for OSD recovery was ever notified by government.
63. PW1 further admitted that he has not placed on record any notification to show that the pay scale of OSD (Recovery) was Rs. 37,400/- to Rs. 67,000/- with GP of Rs. 8700 under CDA pay pattern. But he had produced the salary slips to show the same. He admitted that the said pay scale pertains to Secretary and not OSD (Recovery). He further deposed that there is no separate pay scale for OSD (Recovery) and he was entitled to equivalent pay scale as Secretary pursuant to the High Court order and he could not have been posted on a lower grade.
64. Further, PW1 further deposed that he was illegally reverted to the post of DGM General during the whole of aforesaid period and had challenged the said illegal reversion before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He was drawing the pay and perks under the IDA scale from December 2011 till the refixation of his pay scale under CDA. He further deposed that he was the Regional Manager at Chandigarh from 22.12.06 till 11.02.09 and he had not sent his APRs from 22.12.06 till 11.02.09, and a clear cut drill was sent to him to submit his APRs. He admitted that he had (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 56 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation not submitted his APRs from 2006 till his superannuation in 2016. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of plaintiff was closed vide order dated 18.12.2021.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
65. Defendant examined Sh. Prince Kumar, Manager (G) Central Warehousing Corporation as DW-1, and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
S. No. Exhibits/Marks Details of Documents 1 Ex.DW1/1 Authority letter dated 01.02.2022.
2 Ex.DW1/2 Letter dated 11.03.2008 (objected to by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff on the ground that it is secondary evidence).
3 Ex.DW1/3 Letter dated 30.04.2008 (objected to by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff on the ground that it is secondary evidence).
4 Ex.DW1/4 Letter dated 04.07.2008 (objected to by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff on the ground that it is secondary evidence).
5 Ex.DW1/5 Letter dated 22.08.2008 (objected to by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff on the ground that it is secondary evidence).
6 Ex.DW1/6 Letter dated 23.03.2009 (objected to by Ld. Counsel for (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 57 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation plaintiff on the ground that it is secondary evidence).
7 Ex.DW1/7 Noting/Letter dated 31.05.2010 (objected to by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff on the ground that it is secondary evidence).
8 Ex.DW1/8 Personal division letter dated 02.12.2010 9 Ex.DW1/9 (OSR) Letter dated 25.11.2010. 10 Ex.DW1/10 Letter dated 04.03.2011 (OSR) 11 Ex.DW1/11 Letter dated 21.03.2011 (OSR) 12 Ex.DW1/12 Letter dated 06.04.2011 (OSR) 13 Ex.DW1/13 Letter dated 05.09.2011 (OSR) 14 Ex.DW1/14 Letter dated 13.09.2011 (objected to by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff on the ground that it is secondary evidence).
15 Ex.DW1/15 Letter dated 29.09.2011 (OSR) 16 Ex.DW1/16 Letter dated 27.09.2011 (OSR) 17 Ex.DW1/17 Letter dated 30.08.2012 (OSR) 18 Ex.DW1/18 Letter dated 18.10.2012 and (Colly.) (OSR) 28.12.2012.
19 Ex.DW1/19 Letter dated 07.06.2013 (OSR) 20 Ex.DW1/20 Letter dated 11.04.2014 (objected to by Ld. Counsel for (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 58 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation plaintiff on the ground that it is secondary evidence).
21 Ex.DW1/21 Letter/ Note dated 01.05.2014, (colly.) (OSR) 19.06.2014 and 24.06.2014 22 Ex.DW1/22 Letter/ Note dated 04.09.2014 (OSR) 23 Ex.DW1/23 Letter/Note dated 07.01.2015 (OSR) of GM (Pers) 24 Ex.DW1/24 Letter/ Note dated 05.06.2015 (objected to by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff on the ground that it is secondary evidence).
25 Ex.DW1/25 Letter/ Note dated 18.02.2016 of GM (Pers) (objected to by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff on the ground that it is secondary evidence).
26 Ex.DW1/26 Letter/ Note dated 06.04.2016
and 11.04.2016, Personal
Division CR Cell.(objected to
by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff on
the ground that it is secondary
evidence).
27 Ex.DW1/27 Office order dated 18.01.1985
regarding procedure for
writing, reviewing of ACR
(objected to by Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff on the ground that it is
secondary evidence).
28 Ex.DW1/28 Office order dated 20.11.1985
regarding procedure for
writing, reviewing of ACR
(objected to by Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff on the ground that it is
secondary evidence).
(Yashdeep Chahal),
Civil Judge-02 (South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
11.05.2026 (Page 59 of 103)
CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation
29 Ex.DW1/29 Office order dated 08.01.1986
regarding procedure for
writing, reviewing of ACR
(objected to by Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff on the ground that it is
secondary evidence).
30 Ex.DW1/30 Office order dated 23.08.1988
regarding procedure for
writing, reviewing of ACR
(objected to by Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff on the ground that it is
secondary evidence).
31 Ex.DW1/31 Office order dated 04.04.1989
regarding procedure for
writing, reviewing of ACR
(objected to by Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff on the ground that it is
secondary evidence).
32 Ex.DW1/32 Office order dated 06.07.1989
regarding procedure for
writing, reviewing of ACR
(objected to by Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff on the ground that it is
secondary evidence).
33 Ex.DW1/33 Office order dated 07.07.1989
regarding procedure for
writing, reviewing of ACR
(objected to by Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff on the ground that it is
secondary evidence).
34 Ex.DW1/34 Office order dated 11.12.1989
regarding procedure for
writing, reviewing of ACR
(objected to by Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff on the ground that it is
secondary evidence).
(Yashdeep Chahal),
Civil Judge-02 (South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
11.05.2026 (Page 60 of 103)
CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation
35 Ex.DW1/35 Circular dated 09.10.2013
regarding procedure for
writing, reviewing of ACR
(objected to by Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff on the ground that it is
secondary evidence).
36 Ex.DW1/36 Order/ noting dated 25.03.2008
(OSR) from personal division (CR
Cell) regarding furnishing of
ACR of the plaintiff.
37 Ex.DW1/37 Order/ noting dated 25.03.2008
(OSR) to 23.09.2011 and noting from
the period from 13.12.2010 to
18.01.2011 regarding
furnishing of ACR of all
subordinate staff working in
Chandigarh Region.
66. DW1 was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. In his cross-examination, this witness deposed that he joined CWC in the year July, 2014 as Senior Assistant Manager in the Personnel Division as Senior Assistant Manager and remained in Personnel Division in CWC upto April, 2022. Thereafter, he was posted in regional office at Jaipur. This witness brought the Regulation-18 of CWC (General Regulations, 1965) and as per regulation-18 of CWC, the Managing Director, Secretary or any person authorized by the Managing Director can sign the documents on behalf of defendant no. 1. This witness also brought the office note by which he has been directed to act as a witness in the present case on behalf of CWC. He admitted that Mr. Anil Manik Rao whose (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 61 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation authority letter dated 01.02.2022 is annexed, is not authorized by the Central Warehousing Corporation Act, various regulations, instructions from time to time by the board of directors to further delegate its powers for signing on behalf of CWC. He further admitted that only the corporation is competent to issue drills with regard to writing, reporting and reviewing of the ACRs and no junior officer can write the ACRs of the senior officers in CWC. He also deposed that the Hon'ble High Court has passed the order on 02.02.2009 to post the plaintiff on an appropriate post and further, CWC vide order dated 09.02.2009 has transferred the plaintiff from regional office Chandigarh to Corporate office New Delhi to work as OSD (recovery) and voluntary stated that as per CWC Staff Regulations, 1986, there is no such post of OSD (recovery) existing in the corporation. There is no such post of OSD (recovery) existing in the CWC Staff Regulations, 1986 and further stated that OSD recovery is a position in the corporation like Regional Managers, etc.
67. He further deposed that CWC Staff Regulations, 1986, cannot be superseded by Directors or other officials without prior approval of the Competent Authority. The service conditions and ACRs drills of the CWC can be amended by the officials as per delegation of powers. He brought a document mentioned in the Table dated 10.01.2023 which shows the Reporting and Reviewing officer in respect of OSD (Recovery) from 2009 to 2016, which was exhibited as Ex.DW1/38. The procedure for (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 62 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation promotion in CWC is governed as per Regulation 9 (B) of CWC Staffs Regulations, 1986, further amended vide 21 Amendment dated 30.04.1996. Copy of the same was also exhibited as Ex.DW1/39. He further admitted that even for the staff working under plaintiff during the year 2009 to 2011, the ACRs were not submitted. At this stage, the following Court Question was put to DW1:
Court question: What was the reason for not submitting the ACR as stated above?
DW1 deposed that ACRs were not submitted by the plaintiff as he himself did not record the same, being the reporting/recording officer. He further deposed that it has been mentioned in the document dated 29.09.2011 "besides, the ACRs of your sub- ordinate staff which are required to be reviewed/counter-signed by the director finance are also awaited in the office of director Finance".
68. DW1 also brought CWC General Regulations 1965. Regulation 14 provided the power of Managing Director. Rule 14.3 provides that the Managing Director shall organize and supervise the office of the corporation, maintain discipline and exercise such powers in connections with appointments, promotions, terminations of services and other disciplinary matters and leave of the staff of the corporation as may be vested by the board in this behalf from time to time and allocate duties to the staff and make such other arrangements as may be (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 63 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation necessary for the efficient discharge of the functions of the corporation. The copy of the said rules were also exhibited as Ex.DW1/40.
69. This witness also deposed that in the context of CWC, the post and position are not similar terms and have different meanings assigned to them. The post which are being operated in CWC are mentioned in CWC Staff Regulation, 1986 against which the mode of recruitment is also mentioned, whereas various positions like Regional manager, OSD are being created by the authority who are competent from time to time as per requirement. It is admitted that under Central Warehousing Regulation, 1986, Regulation 5 gives power to the board of directors to determine the strength of various categories of posts and creation of posts in CWC. This witness further admits in his cross-examination that till date, he has not filed the order of the competent authority as mentioned in the office note dated 14.09.2018, signed by one Priya Gupta as mentioned in his cross-
examination dated 09.09.2022. This witness also brought his appointment letter dated 10.07.2014 which was exhibited as Ex.DW1/46. He further admitted in his cross-examination that Ex. DW1/38 was not signed by the MD nor it has been signed by secretary to the board of directors and Ex. DW1/38 is an official note for which board has not authorized Mr. Sumit Kumar and he further admits that Sh. Sumit Kumar, Manager CR/ Policy has issued Ex. DW1/38 on his own, without even taking any (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 64 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation approval and authorization from the Board of Directors and also admitted that Sh. Sumit Kumar has issued Ex. DW1/38 being Section Head of CR/Policy.
70. He further deposed that the table as mentioned in Ex.DW- 1/38 has been prepared as per the ACR and APR drills of CWC and any other guidelines issued by the CWC from time to time. He further admitted in his cross-examination that the orders passed by the disciplinary authorities with regard to the penalties imposed upon the plaintiff are required to be implemented strictly in terms of the said orders only, and there are no rules and regulations in CWC that consent of employee is required, regarding appropriation of the leave encashment once sanctioned. He deposed that it is an administrative decision taken by the appropriate authority to recover the amount and further admitted that CWC has not brought on court record/file any prescribed drill, rules and regulations for writing ACRs of the post of OSD recovery in CWC from 12.02.2009 to 30.11.2016. He voluntarily stated that OSD recovery is not a post in CWC as per CWC Staff Regulations, 1986.
71. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of plaintiff was closed vide order dated 18.12.2021.
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 65 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation FINAL ARGUMENTS
72. I have heard both the parties at length, with oral arguments spread across multiple hearings, who argued as per their pleadings and the arguments are not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. The plaintiff also filed elaborate written submissions followed by a reduced version of the written submissions, supported by various judgments. I have carefully gone through the entire record. I am afraid this judgment would become painfully lengthy if the same are reproduced here, and therefore, I shall directly refer to the relevant aspects in my discussion.
ANALYSIS & DECISION
73. I shall now begin my discussion in an issue-wise manner. For coherence and comprehension, issues involving overlapping aspects have been discussed collectively.
Issue Nos. 3 & 4:
74. The issue nos. 3 and 4 deal with six overlapping prayers at clauses (e), (f), (g), (h), (i) and (j). Broadly speaking, the captioned issues deal with the aspects of implementation of the three penalties in IPCL, LWB and IPA cases; revised fixation of pay vide part II office order dated 04.08.2016; proceedings of DPCs wherein the plaintiff was found unfit for promotion and consequential reliefs of mandatory injunction. Issue nos. 3 and 4 are comprehensive in nature and considering the chronology of (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 66 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation events and the fact that the three penalties lie at the heart of the subject matter at hand, they are required to be dealt with at the beginning itself.
75. As noted above, the plaintiff, during his employment, was found to have committed certain irregularities in IPCL, LWB and IPA cases. Three chargesheets were served to him by the defendant and after disciplinary proceedings, three penalties were imposed on him. As soon as the chargesheets were issued in the year 2004, the plaintiff approached the High Court through Writ Petition (C) Nos. 142/2005 and 143/2005. An interim order was issued in his favour, however, due to non-prosecution, the writ petitions were eventually dismissed in default. Later, when the defendant passed the penalty orders in IPCL and LWB cases, the plaintiff prayed before the High Court to seek restoration of the writ petitions. It was allowed and the writ petitions were dismissed on merits vide judgment dated 17.04.2013. As soon as the challenges were dismissed by the High Court, the defendant proceeded to implement the penalties in IPCL and LWB cases on the same day i.e. 17.04.2013. Prior thereto, a departmental appeal was also rejected against the plaintiff on 05.03.2014.
76. As soon as the implementation of the penalties was ordered, the plaintiff again approached the High Court vide Writ Petition (C) Nos. 8091/2014 and 8092/2014 for LWB and IPCL cases respectively. Both these writ petitions are stated to be (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 67 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation pending. Later, penalty was also issued in the third disciplinary proceeding in IPA case and the same was also challenged before the High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 795/2014. The said writ petition is also stated to be pending. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached this Court seeking to question the implementation of the same three penalties, which are referred as Penalty-I (IPA case), Penalty-II (IPCL case) and Penalty-III (LWB case). I may note at the outset that there are some serious concerns regarding forum shopping, misjoinder of cause of action etc. in the instant case, however, I shall deal with the same while dealing with the relevant issues framed in that regard. At this stage, I shall restrict to the merits of issue nos. 3 and 4.
77. The first point of contention is that the office order dated 04.08.2016 - Ex.PW1/60 - was issued to give effect to the three penalties. As regards Penalty-I ordered on 12.01.2011, it is contended that the said penalty contemplated "reduction of pay by one stage for a period of three years". The pay was, accordingly, reduced by one stage from the then scale of Secretary as on 12.01.2011. This reduction by one stage continued upto 16.04.2013 and was continued w.e.f. 17.04.2013 when the plaintiff's rank was changed to DGM(G) from that of Secretary. This reduction in rank was a result of the imposition of another penalty i.e. Penalty-II in IPCL case vide Ex. PW1/16 which came into effect from 17.04.2013. The plaintiff claims that after the reduction in rank w.e.f. 17.04.2013, the earlier Penalty-I (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 68 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation ought to have been discontinued as it had become unimplementable. He argues that Disciplinary Authority never imposed any penalty of reduction of pay by one stage from the post of DGM(G).
78. The grounds urged by the plaintiff are wholly erroneous and are liable to be rejected. Penalty-I simply prescribed reduction of pay by one stage, without specifying that the reduction of pay is applicable only to the post of Secretary. There is no reference to any specific post in the penalty and irrespective of the post held by the plaintiff, the defendant was duty bound to reduce the pay by one stage and the penalty was applicable for three years w.e.f. 12.01.2011. Thus, the effect of Penalty-I continued even after 17.04.2013 i.e. when the rank of the plaintiff was reduced to DGM(G) in compliance of Penalty-II. Since, the penalty of reduction of pay was not applicable to any specific post, Penalty-I did not become infructuous or unimplementable after the implementation of Penalty-II. Thus, there was no infirmity in the office order dated 04.08.2016 to continue Penalty-I beyond 17.04.2013. Furthermore, it did not amount to going beyond the order of DA(EC) and was, in fact, in pursuance of the said penalty order.
79. As regards Penalty-II, the plaintiff's grievance is that the said penalty contemplated two actions - reduction of post from Secretary to DGM(G) and restoration to original post on being (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 69 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation "found fit by competent authority for promotion to next higher post". He argues that the department only implemented first part of the penalty and failed to consider that the reduction of post was only until the plaintiff was found fit for promotion to the next higher post. He submits that in doing so, the defendant violated Regulation 59 (25th Amendment) of CWC Regulations.
80. Regulation 59 (25th amendment) provides that reduction to lower post shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the employee of the Corporation to the post from which he was reduced, unless there are further directions in the penalty order regarding conditions of restoration to the post from which the employee was reduced. The plaintiff claims that the penalty order in his case contained a condition that the post shall be reduced "until found fit by competent authority for promotion to next higher post". The plaintiff reads this part of the order as a binding direction to the defendant to restore him to the post of Secretary. I find it erroneous, to say the least. The argument is neither rooted in law nor in fact, and is merely based on the assumptions of the plaintiff. A literal and plain reading of the penalty order would suggest that the penalty imposed upon the plaintiff was not for any pre-defined time period, and was to continue until he was found fit for promotion by the competent authority. The language of the penalty was merely to restate that it was not for a defined time period and was to continue till the plaintiff is considered for promotion. It could not be read to mean that a vested right was (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 70 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation created in favour of the plaintiff to be promoted after the reduction of post. It was neither an enforceable right nor a direction for restoration of post, as sought to be argued by the plaintiff herein.
81. Therefore, the stipulation regarding promotion in the penalty order was only issued to clarify that despite penalty, it was permissible for the defendant to consider the plaintiff for promotion at a later point of time, if found fit. This part of the penalty order was not to be acted upon and required no positive or explicit act on the part of the implementing authority. It was merely meant to save the plaintiff's right to promotion at a later stage, which was to be done by the DPC only. The implementing authority was not required to take any action in this regard and its domain was limited to the reduction of post. Even otherwise, it is the admitted position that the implementing authority was not empowered to promote the plaintiff, as it was the exclusive domain of DPC. Suffice to note that there was no legal entitlement of the plaintiff to seek automatic restoration of post after imposition of penalty. It was subject to the plaintiff being found fit for promotion by the DPCs and in fact, he was not promoted as he was not found fit. Therefore, no infirmity could be pointed in the part II office order dated 04.08.2016 insofar as the implementation of Penalty-II is concerned.
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 71 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation
82. Having said that, it needs to be noted that the plaintiff has actually claimed the relief of promotion and therefore, the issue of Penalty-II resulting in reduction of post is interlinked with the issue of promotion, as prayed in clause (i) of the prayer clause. I may, accordingly, consider the same here itself.
83. The aspect of promotion of employees working with the defendant is governed by Regulation 9(B) read with 21st Amendment of CWC Staff Regulations/Ex.PW1/2. The plaintiff claims that after imposition of Penalty-II, he was eligible for promotion to the selection posts of GM(G) or Secretary. He has relied upon the proceedings of the Selection Committee/DPCs from 2013-17 to contend that the only reason for declaring the plaintiff as unfit for promotion during all these years was the non-availability of ACRs and it is contended that the defendant could have written the ACRs of the plaintiff even without submission of self-appraisal by him. Reliance has been placed upon the instructions/office orders in this regard, which are Ex. PW1/86, Ex. PW1/87, Ex. PW1/88 and Ex. PW1/89.
84. I have examined the extant rules as well as the DoPT guidelines with respect to writing of ACRs, and I find that the grounds urged by the plaintiff do not make a case to declare the proceedings of DPCs as illegal or vitiated. Let us have a look at some admitted facts. The plaintiff was awarded major penalty of (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 72 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation reduction of post in the IPCL case. Consequently, his post was reduced from that of Secretary to DGM(G). No doubt, it was made clear that despite reduction of post, it was open for the DPCs to still consider whether the plaintiff was fit for promotion to the next higher post - either of GM(G) or Secretary. It is also admitted that the defendant sent various communications to the plaintiff over the course of the entire relevant period to submit his self-appraisal reports for writing of ACRs. The plaintiff admittedly did not send any self-appraisal report from 2006-07 to 2016 i.e. until his retirement. The explanation is that the defendant did not prescribe any drill for writing of ACRs for the position of OSD (Recovery). However, PW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that OSD (Recovery) was not a separate post in the CWC Regulations and it was merely a functional position. The post of the plaintiff, all along and till his reduction of post, was that of Secretary. It was later reduced to that of DGM(G). Admittedly, the defendant had already prescribed a drill for writing ACRs for the posts of Secretary and DGM(G). Therefore, the plaintiff's continuous insistence to have a separate drill for the position of OSD (Recovery) was completely unjustified and was devoid of any legal basis. Despite him serving at the positions of Regional Manager or OSD (Recovery), his substantive post was always of Secretary and he ought to have submitted his self-appraisal reports in accordance with his post as per the prescribed drill in place. However, he failed to do so.
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 73 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation
85. The plaintiff's only ground to overcome his own failure is that the defendant ought to have updated his ACRs without the self-appraisal. Although, the extant rules enabled the defendant to do so, however, this instruction does not appear to be binding in any way. The Corporation was dealing with an employee who was found guilty and was inflicted with penalties in three cases of misconduct and to top it off, an employee who deliberately refused to send his self-appraisal reports for a period of ten years. In such circumstances, did equity demand the defendant to continue to write the ACRs of the plaintiff despite his persistent non-cooperation, violation of prescribed drill, indulgence in serious misconduct, and to consider him for promotion? I do not think so!
86. Arguendo, even if the defendant would have written the ACRs of the plaintiff, it would not automatically mean that the plaintiff would have received the promotion. The suitability for promotion is to be seen by taking into account a series of circumstances, which includes the gradings of the officer in the ACRs, but is not limited to it. Furthermore, the argument that his old or last available ACRs ought to have been considered by the defendant is also not sufficient to further the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had suffered three penalties after 2006-07 and it was reasonable for the department to seek his latest self-appraisal (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 74 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation reports before considering him for any promotion. The argument that the plaintiff was not heard or given an opportunity to present himself before the DPCs is nothing but an afterthought. He deliberately continued his non-cooperation despite multiple reminders by the defendant, without any justification whatsoever. He did so under a false notion that the functional position of OSD (Recovery) required a separate drill, while knowing well that it was a separate post under the regulations. In such circumstances, there was no occasion for the DPCs to provide a hearing to the plaintiff as, by failing to adhere to the preliminary requirements for being considered for promotion, the plaintiff effectively chose to recuse from the entire process. The plaintiff's conduct amounted to his ouster from the zone of consideration and therefore, the defendant did not deny promotion to the plaintiff on the basis of any adverse finding of being unfit or otherwise, on merits. Had it been the case that the defendant found the plaintiff unfit for promotion, despite the plaintiff fulfilling his end of the bargain and taking all necessary steps as per the drill, the outcome could have been different. In such a case, it could have been said that a hearing to the plaintiff was contemplated. However, the failure of the plaintiff to adhere to the prescribed drill applicable to the substantive post held by him categorically disentitled him from being considered for promotion, and no equity or legal right could now be claimed by the plaintiff.
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 75 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation
87. The reliance placed by the plaintiff on the decisions in Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725, Abhijit Ghsh Dastidar v. Union of India, (2009) 16 SCC 146 and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 9 SCC 566 is misplaced. The said decisions are in a completely different factual backdrop and primarily pertain to the communication of ACR gradings and need for hearing in case the employee makes a representation against the annual gradings. The reliance, therefore, cannot further the case of the plaintiff.
88. As regards the imposition of Penalty-III vide part II office order dated 04.08.2016, the plaintiff has urged that the order was implemented on 17.04.2013, which resulted in the reduction of pay at the reduced post of DGM(G). He contends that the penalty ought to have been implemented on the post held by the plaintiff as on the date of order i.e. 04.05.2010. If so done, the reduction of pay would have been carried out at the pay scale of Secretary. Ideally, the penalty ought to have been imposed on the pay scale being drawn by the plaintiff on the date of penalty. However, the penalty remained eclipsed till 17.04.2013 because of the stay ordered by the Hon'ble High Court and after the lifting of stay, the penalties were initially implemented from the date of the penalty orders i.e. 2010 onwards. However, the same was challenged by the plaintiff himself who urged that the penalties (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 76 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation could be applied retrospectively. The same was corrected by the defendant and a fresh order was issued to implement the penalties w.e.f. 17.04.2013. As a consequence of the same, the reduction of pay was applied to the post held as on the date of implementation of the order. It was actually in line with the decision of the High Court in Duli Chand (Supra), which has been relied upon by the plaintiff himself.
89. In the said decision, the Court was dealing with a matter involving penalties of stoppage of increments and non- consideration for promotion for a certain period. The penalties remained stayed due to an order of the Court and ultimately, they were confirmed and stay was lifted. After the lifting of stay and revival of penalties, the Court found that the calculation of the period of non-consideration for promotion from the date of order would amount to double jeopardy upon the delinquent employee. It was so because the employee was anyway not considered for promotion during the currency of the stay order for three years and if the actual time of non-consideration is commenced after the lifting of stay, the actual period of non-consideration for promotion would get prolonged. However, for the penalty of stoppage of increments, the Court observed that such penalty can be imposed from the date of order of the Court, and not the date of penalty. In holding so, the Court drew a distinction between de-jure and de-facto penalty. In the present case, the plaintiff continued to draw the salary of Secretary from the date of penalty (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 77 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation till the date of judgment on 17.04.2013. The penalty was implemented from 17.04.2013 and since, the plaintiff's post on the said date was of DGM(G), the reduction of pay was applied to the said post. This method adopted by the defendant was a permissible method of implementation of the penalty and the plaintiff has failed to point out any prejudice to him on account of the implementation w.e.f. 17.04.2013. The plaintiff continued to enjoy higher salary during the currency of the period of interim stay and at the time of implementation of the penalty, he sought to seek reduction from a back date, which would have effectively nullified the impact of the penalty. Be that as it may, the method of implementation adopted by the defendant was a permissible method and no illegality has been pointed out in the same.
90. On a conspectus of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity or vitiating factor in the manner of implementation of the three penalties. Further, the plaintiff has failed to prove any infirmity or illegality in the matter of promotion of the plaintiff after the imposition of penalty. The grounds urged by the plaintiff are based on his subjective notions of legality, propriety and administrative conduct. The same are neither supported by law nor by equity. Accordingly, prayers seeking declaration as per clauses (e), (f) and (g), are denied. Consequently, the prayers, in clauses (h), (i) and (j), seeking mandatory (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 78 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation injunction/consequential reliefs on the basis of declaratory reliefs, also stand denied.
91. Thus, issue nos. 3 and 4 are hereby answered in negative and against the plaintiff.
Issue Nos. 1, 2 & 5:
92. The captioned issues pertain to the exceptions taken against the show cause notice dated 19.02.2016, order dated 28.03.2016 and letter dated 08.11.2016. Qua the said orders/letters/notice, the plaintiff seeks declaration of nullity and voidness followed by mandatory injunction to direct the defendant to refund the amount recovered from the plaintiff in furtherance of the said orders. The show cause notice dated 19.02.2016/Ex.PW1/48 was issued to the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 21,53,069/-. It was followed by letter dated 28.03.2016/Ex.PW1/51 whereby the plaintiff was informed that the recovery was being adjusted against the duly sanctioned earned leave encashment of 103 days. The recovery was based on the part II office order dated 06.07.2015 and the plaintiff gave representations against the same citing certain discrepancies. Eventually, the part II office order dated 06.07.2015 came to be revised and a fresh order dated 04.08.2016 was issued whereby the date of implementation of penalties qua the IPCL and LWB cases was changed from 04.05.2010 to 17.04.2013. Accordingly, the defendant itself recalled the recovery of Rs. 21,53,069/-, and (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 79 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation raised a fresh demand of Rs. 9,67,775/- vide communication Ex. PW1/129 dated 08.11.2016, after re-fixation as per the part II office order dated 04.08.2016.
93. The plaintiff's case is that the show cause notice Ex. PW/48 and letter Ex. PW1/51 were based on the part II office order dated 06.07.2015 and since, the said office order came to be revised upon re-fixation, the entire edifice of the recovery of Rs. 21,53,069/- fell down. It is further argued that since the earlier could not be effected, the latter recovery made vide Ex.PW1/129 also became unsustainable. I find myself in agreement with the first line of argument, but not with the second. Since, the show cause notice and recovery letter were based on an office order which came to be revised, the foundation for the said show cause and recovery got replaced the moment the office order was recalled. In fact, that is precisely what the department did by issuing a fresh office order dated 04.08.2016 followed by a fresh demand after re-fixation. The plaintiff's grievance that the earlier show cause and recovery letter dated 19.02.2016 and 28.03.2016 respectively were not formally declared as null and void, is perfunctory in nature and calls upon this Court to render a finding which is not necessitated either in law or fact. The said show cause notice and recovery have already been recalled by the defendant and no adverse action was taken against the plaintiff in furtherance of the same.
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 80 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation Therefore, no cause of action survives in favour of the plaintiff against the same.
94. In fact, the plaintiff, who claims to have approached the Court with clean hands, ought not to have prayed for the refund of Rs. 21,53,069/- when the said amount was never recovered from him by the defendant. The actual recovery made from the plaintiff, as admitted by him in his cross-examination, was only Rs. 9,67,775/- and therefore, it was wholly without any basis to claim any relief alleging the recovery of Rs. 21,53,069/-.
95. Coming to the recovery of Rs. 9,67,775/- claimed vide Ex. PW1/129, the plaintiff contends that the said recovery was based on the earlier recovery and thus, it should have been set aside along with the earlier recovery. I am not impressed with this argument. The recovery dated 08.11.2016 was based on a fresh office order dated 04.08.2016 which was issued regarding the implementation of the penalties w.e.f. 17.04.2013. The dues worked out by the defendant as per the said order were in lieu of the implementation of the penalties imposed upon the plaintiff which had attained finality. The plaintiff claims that he was not heard before issuing the same and in my opinion, rightly so. The penalties were imposed upon the plaintiff after a full procedural round wherein the plaintiff was given opportunities to participate and once the penalties were imposed and attained finality, the implementation thereof was a natural course. No fresh hearing (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 81 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation was contemplated at the implementation stage after the finalization of the penalties.
96. Interestingly, the plaintiff has neither made out any case of prejudice on account of the absence of hearing at this stage nor any case of miscalculation of the dues. The plaintiff has not demonstrated any calculation of his own to counter that of the defendant and has not denied the reasons on account which the dues became recoverable from him. Without proving any circumstance to question the manner of implementation of the penalties and emergence of the dues, the plaintiff seeks a declaration of nullity of the recovery on a purely subjective procedural basis. The claim of a fresh hearing at the stage of implementation is neither contemplated in convention nor in law. In fact, such a hearing would have the effect of prolonging the implementation of the penalties which were challenged and upheld by the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 17.04.2013 in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 142/2005and 143/2005. After the judicial confirmation of the penalties, the defendant was not expected to permit the plaintiff to prolong their implementation, in the name of natural justice or otherwise. To permit the plaintiff to do so would amount to permitting natural justice to operate as an unruly horse - unpredictable and wild.
97. It may also be noted, at this stage, that the implementation of the penalties was preceded by strong observations of the High (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 82 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation Court, in the judgment dated 17.04.2013, regarding the conduct of the plaintiff. The High Court specifically and strongly observed that the plaintiff had managed to delay the implementation of the penalties through vexatious legal proceedings and had also burdened the plaintiff with costs. The relief sought regarding the recovery dated 08.11.2016 also appears to be in line with the same strategy.
98. Notably, the precedents relied upon by the plaintiff to seek the observance of the doctrine of audi alteram partem and principles of natural justice, do not come to his rescue. The principles of natural justice are expected to be followed before any adverse action is contemplated against the claimant. The recovery dated 08.11.2016 was not in the nature of a fresh action. Rather, it was merely a step towards implementation of the adverse penalties imposed and finalized earlier. Furthermore, the precise application of the abstract principles of natural justice depends on a case to case basis, and the Court cannot import its own notions beyond the regulations governing the parties - employer and employee, unless equity and justice of the case so demand. Be it noted that the plaintiff has not pointed out any regulation which provided for a hearing prior to the implementation of the penalties, which have been upheld judicially. It may also be noted that the recovery assailed herein was issued in furtherance of the office order dated 04.08.2016, (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 83 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation which has been upheld by this Court in the discussion on issue nos. 3 and 4.
99. Since, there is no justification to grant any declaration of illegality, nullity or voidness of the show cause notice dated 26.02.2016, recovery letter dated 28.03.2016 and recovery letter dated 08.11.2016, there is no question of the grant of mandatory injunction for recovery of the amount, as mandatory injunction is merely a consequential relief here which is contingent upon declaration.
100. Accordingly, issue nos. 1, 2 and 5 are hereby answered in negative, and against the plaintiff.
Issue Nos. 6 & 7:
101. In the captioned issues, the Court is required to examine whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive the salary of OSD (Recovery) under CDA pattern by virtue of the principle of equal pay for equal work, coupled with refund of taxation related losses incurred by the plaintiff. The ground taken by the plaintiff is that he continued to work as OSD (Recovery) despite reduction of post from Secretary to DGM(G) and therefore, the defendant extracted additional work from him without paying for such additional work.
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 84 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation
102. In light of the preceding discussion, I am of the opinion that the grounds urged by the plaintiff are based on an erroneous notion that OSD (Recovery) was a substantive post with a separate pay scale. However, it is the admitted position that there is no substantive post of OSD (Recovery) in the extant regulations and it was merely a functional position. It is also undisputed that any officer of the Corporation could have been posted as OSD (Recovery), including an officer holding the substantive post of DGM(G). It was not a position exclusively meant for a Secretary level officer. Merely because the position was created when the plaintiff was a Secretary did not make it a position exclusive for Secretary level officers alone. The creation of a substantive post is a formal act which requires the approval of the government and thus, merely because a functional position was created for officers holding certain posts, it did not amount to creation of a substantive post with a separate pay scale.
103. Therefore, the defendant did not commit any error in posting the plaintiff as OSD (Recovery) despite holding the substantive post of DGM(G). Furthermore, the pay scale mentioned by the plaintiff in prayer (l) is the pay scale applicable to the substantive post of Secretary, which the plaintiff used to hold prior to reduction of post as per Penalty-II. If the argument of the plaintiff is accepted, it would effectively mean that the plaintiff was entitled to receive the salary for the post of Secretary despite his reduction to the post of DGM(G). It would (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 85 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation amount to nullifying the effect of a major penalty in an indirect manner. Nevertheless, it is not the case of the plaintiff that he was not provided the salary applicable to his substantive post of DGM(G). The prayer (m) regarding taxation related loss is also unjustified as no infirmity is found in the salary paid to the plaintiff after reduction of rank.
104. Accordingly, issue nos. 6 and 7 are hereby answered in negative, and against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 8:
105. The captioned issue has been framed on the basis of the averment of the defendant that the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands. The allegation has been made on the basis that the plaintiff has indulged in forum shopping by instituting overlapping proceedings before this Court and the Hon'ble High Court for seeking similar and overlapping reliefs. The submissions deserves to be examined with some seriousness.
106. A careful perusal of the facts of the case evinces that during the relevant time period, the plaintiff was instituting writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court on a real time basis, and in this manner, he kept assailing every substantive act of the defendant from time to time. When the chargesheets in IPCL and LWB cases were issued to the plaintiff, he assailed the same before the High Court vide W.P.(C) Nos. 142/2005 and 143/2005.
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 86 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation Both these writ petitions were dismissed in default. Thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings were culminated and penalty orders came to be passed in the IPCL and LWB cases. The plaintiff prayed for restoration of the aforementioned writ petitions and the High Court allowed the same. Eventually, both the writ petitions came to be dismissed on merits.
107. Thereafter, the plaintiff was transferred to Chandigarh and he filed W.P.(C) No. 86/2007 to assail the transfer. In the said proceeding, the respondent gave a statement that the plaintiff would be accommodated on an appropriate post in Delhi and thus, the plaintiff was re-transferred to Delhi at the position of OSD (Recovery). This writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
108. Thereafter, all the employees of the defendant were placed in IDA pay pattern, instead of CDA pattern, and the said decision was assailed by the plaintiff in W.P.(C) No. 8920/2011. Later, the respondent reversed its own order and made it optional for the employees to choose from IDA or CDA pattern. This writ petition was accordingly disposed of as infructuous.
109. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed another writ petition numbered as W.P.(C) No. 7329/2012 regarding the denial of House Rent Allowance to the plaintiff and the said petition is stated to be pending. After the dismissal of W.P.(C) Nos. 142/2005 and 143/2005 on 17.04.2013, the plaintiff filed three more writ petitions to challenge the penalty orders (although the (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 87 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation penalty orders were in existence since 2010-11) in IPA, LWB and IPCL cases, which are numbered as W.P.(C) No. 795/2014, W.P. (C) No. 8091/2014 and W.P.(C) No. 8092/2014 respectively. All three writ petitions against the penalty orders are stated to be pending.
110. In the present suit, the plaintiff claims that he has not challenged the imposition of penalty and has only challenged the implementation of the penalty orders. The present suit came to be filed in 2017 i.e. during the pendency of the aforementioned three writ petitions wherein the imposition of penalties is under challenge. I find myself in agreement with the proposition that imposition of a penalty and implementation thereof are two distinguishable aspects of a matter. Whereas, the former pertains to the merits of the allegations on which penalty has been imposed; the latter pertains to the manner of giving effect to the penalties. However, the two ought to have been clubbed to enable a comprehensive adjudication. Nevertheless, the plaintiff has duly disclosed these aspects in his pleadings and it is not the case of the respondent that the plaintiff has attempted to conceal any aspect. Although, it is quite possible that the plaintiff chose to approach the Civil Court in 2017, after trying his luck before the Hon'ble High Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction, which would amount to forum shopping. However, it is equally possible that the plaintiff chose to approach the Civil Court as the subject matter is fact intensive and involves deeper appreciation of (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 88 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation evidence, which are not usually entertained in the writ jurisdiction. Be that as it may, the choice of a competent forum is a matter of strategy and simply for making that choice, the plaintiff cannot be burdened with the label of having approached the Court with unclean hands. The defendant has failed to discharge the burden to prove any mischief, suppression, material concealment or abuse of judicial process at the hands of the plaintiff. Thus, I see no reasonable ground to reach the conclusion that the plaintiff has approached this Court with unclean hands, and therefore, issue no. 8 is answered in negative, and against the defendant.
Issue No. 9 and Additional Issue Nos. 1 & 2:
111. It seems that inadvertently, Ld. Predecessor has framed two issues on the same averment i.e. whether the suit has not been properly valued and sufficient court fee has not been paid by the plaintiff. The additional issue no. 2 pertains to pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court and the same is dependent on the answer to issue no. 9 and additional issue no. 1. The burden to prove these three issues has been placed on the defendant. I propose to deal with the three issues collectively.
112. The issue of suit valuation has emerged from the argument of the defendant that in the present suit, the plaintiff has claimed the recovery of an amount exceeding Rs. 3,00,000/- and therefore, the suit valuation i.e. valuation of the relief of recovery (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 89 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation of money has not been carried out properly. The plaintiff has claimed recovery of certain dues by way of declaration followed by mandatory injunction and thus, the relief has been valued as per the valuation prescribed for mandatory injunction i.e. as per the plaintiff's own determination or self-valuation. As per the plaintiff , the present suit is in the nature of declaration followed by consequential relief and is not a simpliciter money recovery suit. The issue at hand is not a novel one. Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 envisages two distinct categories of suits - suits for money under Section 7(i) and suits for a declaratory decree and consequential relief under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. In the first category, ad-valorem court fees is paid as per the amount sought to be claimed and in the second category, fixed court fees is paid as per the plaintiff's self-valuation. Since, court fees has a direct nexus with the revenue of the State, Courts need to be mindful of the tendency of the litigants to camouflage money recovery suits into declaratory and consequential relief suits.
Such an act not only leads to loss of revenue to the State but also leads to adjudication by a Court which is not competent for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
113. However, such is not the case in the instant suit. The Hon'ble High Court, in a recent case titled as Manohar Lal v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors., (2025) DHC 9382-DB, dealt with the precise issue at hand and laid down the following test:
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 90 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation "9. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the Judgment of Gomati Prasad v. Mahesh Singh, 2017 SCC OnLine MP 1599, has observed that, to ascertain whether the consequential relief, in fact, flows from the declaratory relief or not, the Court is required to apply the test as to whether the said consequential relief can be claimed independent of the declaratory relief as a substantive relief or not ..."
The Court further observed that the real test is whether the consequential relief is so intricately linked and is dependent on the relief of declaration that it cannot be claimed without such declaration. The operative part of the decision reads thus:
"11. A reading of the aforesaid precedents makes it clear that a consequential relief is one which flows directly and necessarily from the declaratory relief. It is the logical and inevitable outcome of the declaration sought, and its grant is dependent upon the grant of the principal declaratory relief. Such a relief cannot be claimed or maintained independently of the declaration, for it derives its very foundation and enforceability from the existence of the declaratory decree itself. In other words, if the declaration is refused, the consequential relief must necessarily fail."
114. Applying the statement of law to the facts of the present case, it appears that the recovery sought to be effected by the plaintiff herein is not only intricately linked but is entirely dependent on the relief of declaration of the recovery orders as illegal, null and void. The recovery is not standalone in nature and flows directly and necessarily from the declaratory relief. Without such declaration, the plaintiff is left with no basis to claim such recovery. Therefore, the instant suit has been correctly instituted as a suit for declaration and consequential relief, and (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 91 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation not as a suit for money. Accordingly, the plaintiff's self-valuation cannot be faulted.
115. For the reliefs of declaration and consequential reliefs of injunction, this Court is competent to adjudicate the matter and the Court does not lack the pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, the suit valuation is correct both for the purposes of court fee as well as jurisdiction.
116. Accordingly, issue no. 9 and additional issue nos. 1 and 2 are hereby answered in negative, and against the defendant.
Issue No. 10:
117. Issue no. 10 has been framed at the instance of the defendant and the same pertains to the bar of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ("SRA"). The burden has been placed on the defendant. Section 41(h) of SRA reads thus:
"41. Injunction when refused.--An injunction cannot be granted--
...
...
(h) when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust;"
118. The defendant submits that the plaintiff could have obtained the reliefs claimed herein by any other usual mode of proceeding. Despite so, the defendant has not produced any document or material to show the same and the burden on this (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 92 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation issue has not been discharged by the defendant. Unless there is any exception or special procedure or special forum, the "usual" mode of proceeding is always before the Civil Court and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 9 of CPC is plenary in nature, unless it is directly or impliedly barred. Issue no. 10 is accordingly answered in negative, and against the defendant.
Issue No. 11:
119. The present issue pertains to the misjoinder of cause of action. On a careful consideration of the above discussion, especially in issue no. 8, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has indeed mis-joined the cause of action. The plaintiff has chosen to split the two aspects of imposition of penalty and implementation of penalty, despite the fact that the implementation of the penalties was carried out w.e.f. 17.04.2013 (in IPCL and LWB cases) and even earlier in IPA case i.e. prior to the filing of the pending writ petitions. Despite so, the plaintiff chose to not assail the implementation of penalties in the writ petitions filed in the year 2014. However, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the actual implementation of the penalties was done later, and the relevant office orders were issued later in point of time i.e. after the filing of the writ petitions. For instance, the office order dated 06.07.2015, show cause dated 19.02.2016, recovery letter dated 28.03.2016, office order dated 04.08.2016, recovery dated 08.11.2016 etc. have been issued after the filing of the writ petitions. Therefore, even if the argument is taken on face value, (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 93 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation some of the reliefs are justified as the cause of action to claim the said reliefs arose after the filing of the writ petitions. Notably, the defendant has relied upon the statement made by PW1 in his cross-examination that if the writ petition is decided in his favour, the present suit would become infructuous. In my opinion, it is quite natural that if the penalties are set aside on merits, the question of implementation of penalties would become infructuous. However, vice versa is not true. Merely because the manner of implementation of the penalties is upheld, it would not affect the imposition of the penalties on merits.
120. However, if the writ petitions are disposed of without any adjudication on merits for any reason, the plaintiff may not be able to bring a fresh suit before the Civil Court to claim the relinquished portion i.e. to challenge the imposition of penalties afresh. For, the plaintiff has relinquished any claim regarding imposition of penalties from the present suit, and has filed the present suit on the assumption that the penalties were rightly imposed. As per Order II Rule 2 CPC, the effect of relinquishing part of the claim shall be to disentitle the plaintiff from instituting a fresh suit in the future. However, merely because the plaintiff has chosen to relinquish part of the claim in the instant suit, it does not render the present suit as non-maintainable. It would, of course, disentitle him from instituting a fresh suit to claim the relinquished portion. Therefore, although I find that there is partial misjoinder of cause of action by the plaintiff, however, the (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 94 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation suit is maintainable. The bar under Order II Rule 2 would apply to the subsequent suit, if any, for seeking the relinquished portion of the claim herein.
121. Accordingly, issue no. 11 is answered in negative, and against the defendant.
Issue No. 12:
122. In this issue, the question is whether the written statement of the defendant was not filed and signed by a duly authorized representative of the Corporation. The plaintiff bears the burden to prove this issue. It is contended that the amended written statement on behalf of the defendant was filed on 18.07.2017 and was signed by one Mr. P.K. Saw, Deputy General Manager (Personnel). It was accompanied by an affidavit as well. However, Mr. P.K. Saw was never presented before the Court for proving his signatures on the WS and Affidavit. The second line of argument is that DW-1 Mr. Prince Kumar was also not authorized to depose on behalf of the defendant as he did not produce any authority letter. It needs to be observed that the outset that the captioned issue has been framed only qua the competency of Mr. P.K. Saw to file the amended written statement and the issue is not concerned with the competency of DW-1. The Court cannot enter into any adjudication beyond the scope of the issue framed by the Court and therefore, the enquiry (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 95 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation here is limited to the competency of Mr. P.K. Saw to file the amended written statement.
123. As soon as the amended WS came to be filed, the plaintiff raised an objection regarding the authorization in favour of Mr. P.K. Saw to sign and file the WS. In response, the defendant produced a letter dated 18.11.2014 which was Annexure R4 in the rejoinder. This document purportedly authorized the Deputy General Manager to sign and verify the WS on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff raised an objection that the document was not in original. The Court, on 27.07.2017, directed the defendant to produce the original. Thereafter, the defendant produced the original office order on 12.12.2017, which showed the authorization in favour of the Deputy General Manager. The plaintiff's case is that the original document and photocopy produced earlier are not the same and the original document appears to be fabricated. He further submits that there are certain variations inter-se the two documents and the documents cannot be relied upon by the Court.
124. When the objection was raised by the plaintiff regarding the authorization of Mr. P.K. Saw, the defendant placed on record the general authorization dated 18.11.2014 in favour of DGMs issued by the Managing Director in exercise of his powers under Regulation 18 of the Central Warehousing Corporation (General) Regulation, 1965. It was followed by the order dated 16.11.2016 (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 96 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation whereby Mr. P.K. Saw was handed over the charge of DGM (Personnel) of the defendant. As per order dated 18.11.2014, all Deputy General Managers (DGMs) are authorized to sign and verify, on behalf of the defendant Corporation, the plaints, written statements, petitions, affidavits and all other documents connected with legal proceedings. The written statement herein and accompanying affidavit were signed by Mr. P.K. Saw who was DGM (Personnel) as per the order dated 16.11.2016. Therefore, Mr. P.K. Saw was authorized to sign and verify the amended written statement filed on behalf of the defendant, and was also competent to file the affidavit. The plaintiff has not assailed the post of Mr. P.K. Saw and has not questioned the order dated 16.11.2016 regarding his appointment as DGM (Personnel).
125. The sole objection is that the authorization letter dated 18.11.2014 was not proved by the defendant as there were variations inter-se the photocopy and original of the said authorization letter. I may refer to the relevant order dated 12.12.2017 which records the proceedings referred herein. The said order records the following:
"Original office order authorizing Deputy General Manager of the defendant to sign and verify all documents including written statement has been produced by the defendant.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that it is not the original of the annexure R4 that has been filed by the defendant since there are certain notings/details which are different. Defendant has submitted that this is the original (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 97 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation available with them. Since this office order has various copies, slight difference in internal notings is matter of routine.
Defendant is directed to supply the copy of the office order produced today, on the next date of hearing. Plaintiff is at liberty to raise this objection at the time of evidence."
126. A perusal of the above order makes it clear that the original of the authorization letter dated 18.11.2014 was produced before the Court in compliance of the directions issued by the Court after hearing the objections raised by the plaintiff. The Court noted that the plaintiff had raised certain differences in the notings made on the original letter and the photocopy on record, and also noted that the discrepancies had arisen because of additional notings made on the original in the course of official work. Finally, the Court left it to the plaintiff to agitate the issue during trial. The original letter, notably, was not retained on record and the order does not reflect any request on behalf of the plaintiff to retain the original letter on record. Further, letter dated 18.11.2014 is neither a part of plaintiff's evidence nor of defendant's evidence. The said document has not been exhibited in the present case, however, the copy was put to DW-1 during his cross-examination conducted on 26.07.2022. DW-1 stated that he could not tell whose signatures are at point A of the document. This is the whole basis to contend that the authorization letter is liable to be rejected.
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 98 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation
127. It is trite law that a doubt regarding lack of proper authorization in favour of a representative of a company is a procedural doubt, and the same cannot be made the basis to dismiss the case itself. It is always open to the Court, even for the appellate Court, to seek ratification by calling the relevant witnesses. Reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of Baroda v. Naresh Kumar and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 660. However, the plaintiff appears to have raised an avoidable issue here. As noted in the order dated 12.12.2017, there is no serious discrepancy in the authorization letter dated 18.11.2014, except certain notings made in the course of official work. The photocopy ought to have been generated earlier and filed in the Court. Later, the original was produced after issuance of specific directions by the Court. In the interregnum, the original document remained with the defendant and must have been used before various forums and for various purposes, as it is in the nature of a general authorization. Mere presence of certain notings does not render the document as forged or fabricated, unless the different or additional notings are specifically pointed out, authors are examined and intent is questioned. No such endeavour has been made in the instant case. The explanation furnished on behalf of the defendant has remained unrebutted as apparent from the order itself.
128. Further, despite framing of issue and bearing the burden to prove it, the plaintiff led no evidence to question the (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 99 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation authorization and did not even exhibit the document. The plaintiff could have called the relevant witnesses from the Corporation to assail the document, but he did not so. The plaintiff simply put the authorization letter to DW-1 and asked whether he could identify the signatures at point A. Naturally, DW-1 denied knowledge as he had no connection with the document in question. Pertinently, the plaintiff did not question the signatures of the Managing Director who is the author of the authorization letter dated 18.11.2014. The signatures at point A are in a blank space on the document and have no relation with the authenticity or existence of the document, as the document was executed by the Managing Director, whose signatures have not been questioned in cross-examination. Therefore, the plaintiff has not led any evidence to question the genuineness of the document. The original was produced by the defendant before the Court and the same was returned after perusal. The Court did not record any infirmity in the same. it was, therefore, for the plaintiff to lead evidence on this aspect to discharge the evidentiary burden.
129. The cross-examination of DW-1, insofar as the authorization letter dated 18.11.2014 is concerned, is perfunctory in nature. The authorship of the document has not been questioned and no circumstance has been pointed out to impeach the contents of the document, and the only basis of objection is the existence of certain notings. The description of such notings (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 100 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation or the description and nature of the alleged discrepancies have also not been highlighted and brought out in evidence, for this Court to take any adverse call. More importantly, the plaintiff has not, at any stage of the entire suit, alleged that the contents of the authorization letter dated 18.11.2014 are different in the original and photocopy. Therefore, the authorization in favour of DGM (Personnel) is not questioned. The document has been questioned on the basis of post-hoc variations/notings only, that too without specifying the variations.
130. Interestingly, as regards the execution of the authorization letter dated 18.11.2014, the plaintiff did not take any objection in the order dated 12.12.2017 or in the cross-examination of DW-1. It has been taken for the first time in the written submissions filed on behalf of the plaintiff. I am not inclined to look into it as the said line of argument is beyond the pleadings and evidence.
131. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has raised a frivolous objection against the authorization letter and has failed to prove any fabrication or forgery in the letter. The document was produced in original before the Court and it was left to the plaintiff to prove his objections during evidence, which he has failed to do. Accordingly, issue no. 12 is hereby answered in negative, and against the plaintiff.
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 101 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation
132. Before parting, I am constrained to record an observation which is not confined to the present suit and is based on the experience gained from various other civil suits. The plaint filed by the plaintiff in the present suit is in utter disregard of the rules of pleadings and Orders VI and VII of CPC. The pleadings are supposed to be factual statements, devoid of evidence. However, the plaint on record is a comprehensive and never ending summary of irrelevant facts, extracts from various judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court, pure statements of law, evidentiary aspects and arguments. Consequently, this Court had to spend considerable time in separating the grain from the chaff, and to deduce the core of the subject matter. In fact, it was done despite the advice falling from the Hon'ble High Court in the order dated 24.11.2014 passed in W.P. (C) Nos. 8091/2014 and 8092/2014. Noting the verbosity of the petition filed by the plaintiff before the High Court, the Court observed thus:
3. It may be noted here that the petitioner has been so verbose that the petitions run into almost 200 pages each comprising of four virtually unending paras. While amending the writ petitions, learned counsel for the petitioner shall consider restructuring the averments made therein firstly by assigning running para numbers, instead of splitting each para into numerous sub paras, so that the sequence of narration is more explicit and coherent. He shall also trim down the petitions by deleting extraneous averments, avoiding repetition and making it as compact, brief and pithy as is possible, so that the Court does not miss the wood for the trees and is in a position to appreciate the real grievance of the petitioner, in its correct perspective. Similarly, the grounds of appeal in the petitions also need to be paired down and restructured."
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 11.05.2026 (Page 102 of 103) CS SCJ 78/17 Dr. Subhash C. Batra v. Central Warehousing Corporation
133. Despite this explicit advice, the plaintiff ended up filing the present plaint with similar characteristics of verbosity and virtually unending paragraphs. To my mind, no Court appreciates being burdened with never ending pleadings and to be compelled to wander unnecessarily to find the real issue. Such pleadings come with the danger of missing the wood for the trees and eventually result into a colossal wastage of judicial time. I need not say more.
RELIEF
134. In view of findings above, the present suit stands dismissed being devoid of merits. Parties to bear their own costs.
135. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
136. The present judgment consists of 103 pages and all the pages bear my signatures.
137. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by YASHDEEP YASHDEEP
CHAHAL
CHAHAL Date: 2026.05.11
18:06:35 +0530
Announced in the open court (Yashdeep Chahal)
on 11.05.2026 Civil Judge-02, South,
Saket Courts, New Delhi
11.05.2026
(Yashdeep Chahal),
Civil Judge-02 (South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
11.05.2026 (Page 103 of 103)