Delhi District Court
Surender Singh vs Indraprastha Apollo Hospital Others on 3 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. POORVA MEHRA,
CIVIL JUDGE-02, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:-
CS SCJ 209/2016 52163/16
SURENDER SINGH VS. INDRAPRASTHA APOLLO
HOSPITAL OTHERS
Sh. Surender Singh
S/o. Late Sh. Hari Ram Yadav
R/o. H. No.349, VPO Pandwalan Kalan,
PS Chhawla, New Delhi-110043. ......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital
Having its Registered Office at:
Sarita Vihar, Delhi Mathura Road,
New Delhi-110076.
2. Sh. Rohit Kapoor
Sr. General Manager (HR)
Sarita Vihar, Delhi Mathura Road,
New Delhi-110076.
Also at: 1613, Sector-28,
Faridabad, Haryana.
3. Mr. Gopal
Deputy General Manager
Sarita Vihar, Delhi Mathura Road,
New Delhi-110076. ......Defendants
SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS AND DAMAGES
THIS IS ONE OF THE OLDEST CASES PENDING IN THIS COURT
Date of institution of the suit : 10.06.2016
Date of Judgment : 03.12.2025
CS SCJ 52163/2016 Poorva Mehra
Surender Singh Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED
Page no. 1 of 20 Saket Court, ND/03.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall decide the present suit for Mandatory Injunctions and recovery of Damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) alongwith interest @ 24% per annum, filed by the Plaintiff alongwith Defendants.
PLAINT: -
2. Briefly stated, Plaintiff is the sole bread earner of his family. Plaintiff's family is engaged in agricultural activities and Plaintiff is a Cancer patient and is undergoing acute economical, physical and mental crisis. Plaintiff had been working with the Defendant no.1 namely "Indraprastha Apollo Hospital" for about 20 years, as a Head Guard in the Security Department. Defendant no.2 is the General Manager and Head of the Human Resource Department of Defendant Hospital and Defendant no.3 is the second in command, below the Defendant no.2 and has been an active participant in the arousal of the cause of action. Due to physical ailments, Plaintiff has been facing serious problems in effective deliverance of his duties with Defendant Hospital.
3. It is averred that Plaintiff is a Matriculate with almost 25 years of professional experience with Security Department of Defendant Hospital and had joined the hospital on 21.05.1996 as a Senior Security Guard under Employee Clock No.3630 at a gross monthly salary of Rs.2,264/-. Plaintiff has been contributing to Defendant Hospital since CS SCJ 52163/2016 Poorva Mehra Surender Singh Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 2 of 20 Saket Court, ND/03.12.2025 many years and considering the performance of the Plaintiff, he was praised for his efforts and has been awarded with the Employee of the Year Award in the year 1999 and again with the Honesty Award in the year 2005. Plaintiff is the Senior most person of his department in terms of age and experience. In the year 2008, Plaintiff came to know that he had a tumor in his brain for which he was operated in the month of December, 2008. In the month of July 2009, once again he fell ill and he was operated upon for thyroid cancer. Therefore, post operation his body responded in a very peculiar manner and some of his body parts got bigger in size, thereby making him comparatively more vulnerable and unfit than before. However, in the year 2004, 2005 & 2006, Plaintiff voluntarily participated in Regular Blood Donation to the Defendant Hospital's Blood Bank.
4. It is submitted that the main contention of the Plaintiff is with respect to the promotions and annual increments policies of the Defendants which are very inconsistent, illegal and unfair creating a divide between the employees. The policies of the Defendant Hospital are in contradiction to the fundamental right of equality, as enshrined in the Constitution of India. It is asserted that Plaintiff was recruited as a Senior Security Guard and he got his first and only promotion in the year 2008 i.e. after 12 years of continuous and dedicated service. Furthermore, despite the fact that the Plaintiff was hospitalized and operated upon twice for tumor and cancer consecutively, the Hospital CS SCJ 52163/2016 Poorva Mehra Surender Singh Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 3 of 20 Saket Court, ND/03.12.2025 Administration had stopped his salary from August 2009 to June 2010. Thereafter, Plaintiff was not awarded any increment at all in the annual appraisals of year 2011 and 2012.
5. It is averred that at the time of joining the Defendant Hospital, salary of Plaintiff was Rs.2,300/- which had increased to Rs.17,900/- only in a span of 20 years and the said meagre amount is not at all enough for the upbringing of his family and children.
6. It is, furthermore, submitted that the other employees of the Security Department, who are more or less equal to the Plaintiff in terms of qualification and experience, but they have got multiple promotions and comparatively higher increments. The Defendants had recruited fresh Graduates as Junior Supervisors in the year 2009, but, did not promote the existing experienced and equally qualified employee, which otherwise could have trained the newly appointed Junior Supervisors, as they are acquainted with the work and policies of the Defendants turning it to be a more profitable option.
7. That it is in general practice of the Defendants that an employee will get his promotion on the basis of his annual appraisal, which had to be filled by the Head of Department and duly accepted and signed by the employee concerned. The said annual appraisal process is highly confidential and the papers relating to the same are never shown to the employees. Defendants have dilatory technique for cheating and fooling the employees in CS SCJ 52163/2016 Poorva Mehra Surender Singh Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 4 of 20 Saket Court, ND/03.12.2025 appraisals as they fill the appraisal forms with pencil with excellent marks so that the employee concerned would sign the same without questioning and later on, they rub the information and fill it with the pen.
8. It is asserted that the Plaintiff has not been promoted deliberately by Defendant nos.2 & 3, as they are the final authorities to formulate the Human Resource policies and sanction the promotion and increments. Due to this, Plaintiff has suffered damages of Rs.2,00,000/-. Consequently, Plaintiff was compelled to make a representation dated 19.12.2014 to the Senior Officer of the Defendants about his grievances, but, to no avail.
9. Hence, the present suit for Mandatory Injunctions and recovery of Damages.
SUMMONS: -
10. Summons were duly served upon the Defendants and they appeared through Ld. Counsel.
WRITTEN STATEMENT: -
11. Written Statement was filed in court on behalf of Defendants. Multiple preliminary objections have been raised.
12. It is stated in the WS that suit is barred under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. Plaintiff falls under the definition of "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is as under:
"2(s) workman means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any Industry to do any CS SCJ 52163/2016 Poorva Mehra Surender Singh Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 5 of 20 Saket Court, ND/03.12.2025 manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire of reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an Industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-
(1) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature."
13. It is stated that Plaintiff did not perform any Supervisory/Managerial or Administrative duties, thus, he is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act and, accordingly, any remedy for the purported grievances of the Plaintiff lies under the Industrial Dispute Act. The present suit is thus not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
CS SCJ 52163/2016 Poorva Mehra Surender Singh Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 6 of 20 Saket Court, ND/03.12.2025
14. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, it is submitted that the present suit is not maintainable as the same is barred by Section 14 (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is a settled law that a contract of personal service cannot be enforced in a Civil Suit.
15. It is further submitted that "industry" is defined under Section 2(j) and "industrial dispute" is defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Dispute Act as follows:
"2(1)"industry" means any systematic activity carried on by co-operation between an employer and his workmen (whether such workmen are employed by such employerdirectly or by or through any agency, including a contractor) for the production, supply or distribution of goods or services with a view to satisfy human wants or wishes (not being wants or wishes which are merely spiritual or religious in nature), whether or not,- "2(k) industrial dispute means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person;"
"Settlement" is defined under Section 2 (p) of the I.D. Act as follows:
(p) "Settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and Includes a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to CS SCJ 52163/2016 Poorva Mehra Surender Singh Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 7 of 20 Saket Court, ND/03.12.2025 [an officer authorized in this behalf by] the appropriate Government and the Conciliation Officer."
16. Furthermore, it is asserted that as the Plaintiff is a workman under the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, he is bound by the terms of settlement signed between Defendant No. 1 and the workmen/staff from time to time.
17. It is further asserted that Plaintiff is covered by the Wage Increase Settlement dated 09.08.2016 entered into between the Defendant No. 1 and the workmen/staff. The Plaintiff had signed a Declaration to the settlements dated 09.08.2016, wherein, it has been specifically mentioned in the Declaration that;
"I, Surinder Singh, Clock No. 3630, Head Guard, working in Security have gone through the terms of the settlement dated 09.08.2016 which is operative and binding from 01.08.2016 to 31.07.2019 and which have also been read over and explained to me. I find the settlement fair and reasonable and hereby accept all the terms of the settlement voluntarily of my own accord by signing this declaration and accepting the settlement, I may be treated and deemed to be party to the settlement dated 09.08.2016. The benefits of the said settlement be, therefore, paid to me.
This being a full and final settlement, I have now no dispute, demand or claim of any nature whatsoever left against the management and as such any dispute, demand or claim raised by me or on behalf by and any person including any Union shall also be deemed finally settled. I do hereby declare and undertake that consequent upon the above settlement I shall CS SCJ 52163/2016 Poorva Mehra Surender Singh Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 8 of 20 Saket Court, ND/03.12.2025 not raise any demand or dispute against the management having financial implications, during the operation and currency of this Settlement. I also further undertake that I shall not resort to or indulge in any form of agitation including strike, gherao, demonstration, go- slow etc. during the subsistence of this Settlement.
18. It is submitted that the Plaintiff had signed the Declaration after fully understanding the contents of the same and received the benefits under the Settlement and, thus, cannot raise any dispute/demand having financial implications during the operation and currency of the Settlement dated 09.08.2016 which is effective till 31.07.2019.
19. It is also submitted that the correct factual position is that promotion of an employee is based on the recommendations of the Head of the Department on the basis of Annual Performance Appraisals. Based on the performance appraisal, the Plaintiff was promoted in the year 2001 and, thereafter, his performance deteriorated and his Head of the Department did not recommend Plaintiff's name for promotion. Therefore, no injunction can be issued against the Defendants for promoting an employee.
20. Moreover, the present suit is liable to be dismissed on ground of mis-joinder of parties. The relief sought by the Plaintiff is against the Defendant No.1 and no relief is sought against the Defendant nos. 2 and 3 as they are neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings.
CS SCJ 52163/2016 Poorva Mehra
Surender Singh Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED
Page no. 9 of 20 Saket Court, ND/03.12.2025
REPLICATION: -
21. Replication was also filed by Plaintiff, wherein, Plaintiff denied the claims of Defendants entirely.
ISSUES: -
22. Based on pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:
a) Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of damages of Rs.2 lakhs along with the interest at the rate of 24% per annum against defendant for not getting his promotion and increments on time? OPP
b) Issue no.2: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable being impliedly barred falling under Industrial Dispute Act 1947? OPD
c) Issue no.3: Whether the suit is barred by Section 14(b) of Specific Relief Act? OPD
d) Issue no.4: Relief.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE: -
23. PW-1: In Plaintiff Evidence, Sh. Surender Singh/ Plaintiff deposed as PW-1 vide affidavit of evidence exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A. He reiterated the contents of the plaint. He relied upon copy of appointment letter which is Ex.PW-1/1, copy of documents with respect of the treatment as as Ex.PW-1/2 (Colly), copy of salary slip as Ex.PW-1/3 (Colly) and copy of representation dated CS SCJ 52163/2016 Poorva Mehra Surender Singh Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 10 of 20 Saket Court, ND/03.12.2025 19.12.2014 alongwith proof of delivery and copy of identity card, marked as Mark A. PW-1 was cross-
examined extensively by the Ld. Counsel for Defendants.
24. PW-2: Sh. Harish Chand Sharma, who was the co-
employee with the Plaintiff, deposed as PW-2. He relied upon his affidavit of evidence tendered as Ex.PW-2/A. PW-2 was also cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for Defendants.
25. Thereafter, vide a separately recorded statement, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff closed PE.
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE: -
26. DW-1: Sh. Gopal Nath, DGM HR of Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, was examined as DW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex.DW-1/A. He was cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff on several dates. DW-1 relied upon the following documents:
S. No. Documents Exhibits
1. Authorization Letter to depose on Ex.DW-1/1
behalf of the Defendant no.1
2. Copies of settlements entered into Ex.DW-1/2 (Colly)
between the Defendant no.1 and
Plaintiff.
3. Copies of warning letters and apology Ex.DW-1/3 (Colly)
4. Individual Payment Report Sheet and Ex.DW-1/4 (Colly) Leave Card
5. Copies of appraisals and documents Ex.DW-1/5 (Colly) related to performance of the Plaintiff.
CS SCJ 52163/2016 Poorva Mehra Surender Singh Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 11 of 20 Saket Court, ND/03.12.2025
27. Thereafter, vide separate statement, Ld. Counsel for Defendants closed Defendant Evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS: -
28. Ld. Counsels for the Plaintiff and Defendants addressed arguments at length. I have heard the submissions advanced by the Ld. Counsels for both parties. I have also perused the entire case record meticulously.
29. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff that during the pendency of the present suit, Plaintiff has attained the age of superannuation and has retired from the services of Defendant no.1. Consequently, the prayer of Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendants to promote the Plaintiff has become infructuous, as the underlying service relationship has ceased to exist.
30. It is asserted that Plaintiff is now seeking the relief of damages for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, which is sought as just compensation for the quantifiable financial lossess incurred by Plaintiff stemming directly from the illegal stoppage of his earned salary, arbitrary and repeated denial of annual increments and the profound mental harassment and loss of earning opportunities resulting from the unjust denial of his rightful promotion over a span of more than a decade.
31. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for Defendants argued that the present suit is impliedly barred under Section 9 of CPC. Plaintiff falls under the definition of "workman" as definded under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, CS SCJ 52163/2016 Poorva Mehra Surender Singh Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 12 of 20 Saket Court, ND/03.12.2025 1947.
32. It is, further, submitted that present suit is barred under Section 14(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and it is a settled law that a contract of personal service cannot be enforced in a Civil Suit.
33. Next, considering the term "industry" under Section 2(j) and "Industrial dispute" under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Dispute Act, Defendant no.1 is an " industry"
and dispute between Defendant no.1 and the Plaintiff, constitutes an "Industrial Dispute", therefore, Plaintiff is bound by the terms of settlement signed between Defendant no.1 and Plaintiff.
34. Ld. Counsel for Defendants asserted that Plaintiff has already received the benefits under above-said settlement, thus, cannot raise any dispute/ demand having financial implications during the operation.
ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS:-
35. At the outset, it is apparent to the undersigned from the case record that Plaintiff has worked with the Defendant no.1 since last 20 years. The services rendered by Plaintiff has been exceptional, to say the least till the year 2009. His performance duly recognized by the number of awards bestowed upon him by Defendant no.1 from the year 1999 till 2005 and duly recognized by Defendant no.1 namely "Employee of the Year Award" in 1999 and "Honesty Award" in 2005. However, Plaintiff unfortunately suffered from brain tumor in the year 2008. As per submissions, he CS SCJ 52163/2016 Poorva Mehra Surender Singh Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 13 of 20 Saket Court, ND/03.12.2025 was operated upon in the month of December, 2008. Plaintiff again had to bear the brunt of thyroid cancer in July, 2009. But, after due treatment and the courage of the Plaintiff and his family, brought him back into the employment of Defendant no.1 and he could perform his duties, although, in a vulnerable state. Understanding his social responsibility, Plaintiff also voluntarily participated in regular blood donations at Defendant no.1 hospital in the year 2004, 2005 & 2006. Defendant no.1 in utmost regard to Plaintiff, did support and bear the treatment cost of the Plaintiff in December 2008 and July 2009. Also, Plaintiff received treatment and got operated upon at Defendant no.1 hospital and thereafter, Plaintiff continuous to be in the employment of Defendant no.1 hospital. These are facts admitted by parties.
36. However, the parties came at confrontation when Plaintiff was not promoted after rendering a continuous service of 25 years and retired as a Head Guard only. It is submitted by the Plaintiff that due to his medical condition, Defendant no.1 hospital stopped his salary from a period of August 2009 till June 2010 and was also not awarded annual increments in all the appraisals for the year 2011 & 2012 despite being the senior most and experienced with the Defendant no.1 hospital. Plaintiff submits that he joined on 21.05.1996 and was sidelined by Defendant no.1 in favour of Junior Supervisors who were only fresh graduates in the year 2009. He also alleges that Defendant nos.2 & 3 colluded with Defendant no.1 hospital to fool CS SCJ 52163/2016 Poorva Mehra Surender Singh Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 14 of 20 Saket Court, ND/03.12.2025 him out of the system. His ACR was punched in collusion by Defendant nos.1, 2 & 3 as the ACRs were filled initially in pencil and later changed into ink by the Management. Due to the above-said situation, Plaintiff was compelled to make a representation dated 19.12.2024 to the Senior Officers of Defendant no.1, but to no avail.
37. On the other hand, it is submitted by Defendant no.1 that the suit of the Plaintiff suffers from misjoinder of parties and is liable to be dismissed for impleading Defendant nos.2 & 3 as Defendants as Plaintiff is not claiming any relief against them. Further, it is also specifically submitted by Defendant no.1 since one of the prayers, which is sought for by the Plaintiff is reinstatement into Defendant no.1 hospital, prayer of the Plaintiff is " to promote the Plaintiff as per his counter parts equal to him in terms of experience and merits alongwith all the increments and consequential benefits from back dates", the present dispute pertains to the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, as Plaintiff is a 'workman' under Section 2(s), Defendant no.1 is an industry and the present dispute is an Industrial Dispute as per Section 2(j) and Section 2(k) respectively. Third, it is submitted by Defendant no.1 that the prayer of the Plaintiff in seeking damages and promotion is also barred under Section 14(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as the contract of service is a 'personal' contract. Defendants have also placed on record the treatment summary which Plaintiff received at Defendant no.1 hospital and also relied upon the CS SCJ 52163/2016 Poorva Mehra Surender Singh Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 15 of 20 Saket Court, ND/03.12.2025 settlement entered between Defendant no.1 and Plaintiff, more specifically, the Wage Increase Settlement dated 09.08.2016, signed by the Plaintiff. Further, Defendant no.1 has also placed on record the warning letter and apology rendered by Plaintiff issued to him due to deficiency in service by Plaintiff. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for Defendants that performance of Plaintiff weakened after the year 2009, Defendant nos.2 & 3 did not recommend him for promotion, as promotions is a policy matter, Defendant no.1 did not promote the Plaintiff. These lapses were duly admitted by Plaintiff. However, Defendant no.1 hospital did help him in the treatment of Plaintiff's cancer and never reclaimed the money back from Plaintiff.
38. In order to support his claims, Plaintiff relied upon the copy of appointment letter which is Ex.PW-1/1, copy of documents with respect of the treatment as as Ex.PW-1/2 (Colly), copy of salary slip as Ex.PW-1/3 (Colly) and copy of representation dated 19.12.2014 alongwith proof of delivery and copy of identity card, marked as Mark A. Plaintiff also relied upon the testimony of PW-2 Sh. Harish Chand Sharma, who relied upon his affidavit of evidence proved as Ex.PW-2/A.
39. Defendant no.1 examined DW-1, Sh. Gopal Nath, who is the DGM HR of Defendant no.1 hospital. He brought on record the copies of settlements entered into between Defendant no.1 and Plaintiff as Ex.DW-1/2 (Colly), copies of warning letters and apology as Ex.DW-1/3 (Colly), CS SCJ 52163/2016 Poorva Mehra Surender Singh Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 16 of 20 Saket Court, ND/03.12.2025 Individual Payment Report Sheet and Leave Card as Ex.DW-1/4 (Colly) and copies of appraisals and documents related to performance of Plaintiff as Ex.DW-1/5 (Colly).
40. From the aforesaid discussion and perusal of the case record, it shows that Plaintiff is not pressing for prayer clause (a) of the plaint as he retired during course of trial.
41. Going further, in the context of claims by parties, this court in its considered opinion, has the following observations:
(i) It is the admitted position of Plaintiff that he, unfortunately suffered from cancer in December 2008 to July 2009, due to which Defendant no.1 hospital did support him and got him operated and treated at Defendant no.1's facilities at Defendant no.1's expense. Plaintiff did join the services thereafter, but continued to be naturally weak and unfit.
The deficiency and errors were recorded and replied to by both the parties vide Ex.DW-1/3(Colly) which has not been denied by the parties. The individual payment Report Sheet and Leave Card which is proved as Ex.DW-1/4 (Colly) is also part of the record. Furthermore, the appraisal documents have also been proved as Ex.DW-1/5 (Colly). These documents are alleged to be fraudulently managed by the Defendants as per the submissions made by the Plaintiff. However, this remains mere bald submissions without any supporting evidence. This court cannot take into consideration the allegations of cheating and forgery by the institution on mere oral submission.
CS SCJ 52163/2016 Poorva Mehra Surender Singh Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 17 of 20 Saket Court, ND/03.12.2025
The only support that the Plaintiff receives is through PW-2. However, these submissions also remain vague as no specific time, date and incident, leading to the present allegation, is submitted. Moreover, Defendant no.1 has placed on record Ex.DW-1/2 (Colly), which Plaintiff duly signed with Defendant no.1.
(ii) As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No. 7630 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.4339 of 2009), titled as "High Court of Judicature at Patna Vs. Madan Mohan Prasad and Ors.", it is held, promotion is not a matter of right, much less a fundamental right. Coming to the facts of the suit, it is apparent that Plaintiff did suffer from insufficient service which he was notified vide warning letters and apologies were duly tendered by the Plaintiff as Ex.DW-1/3 (Colly). Said documents pertained to the year 2014 to which the replies were also given. Plaintiff also submits that he was the under performer during and has tendered unconditional apologies on all the occasions.
(iii) Further, Plaintiff's plea of discrimination and malice remain mere oral allegations due to no substantial proof. Plaintiff has also not denied the Wage Settlement entered into Defendant no.1 and the Plaintiff, hence, the claim of increments also falls flat.
(iv) From the discussion above, it is evident that the financial losses and denial of increments and promotion cannot be termed as Arbitrary.
CS SCJ 52163/2016 Poorva Mehra Surender Singh Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 18 of 20 Saket Court, ND/03.12.2025 (v) Coming to the issues specifically, it is held as follows:
Issue no.1: From the discussion above, which is not being reiterated for the sake of brevity, it is apparent that Defendant no.1 defrayed the operation as well as the treatment cost of Plaintiff. Further, Plaintiff was not performing up to the mark as apparent from the evidence as noted above and therefore, his services were under scrutiny and he was not recommended for promotion by the Management in the due process. Therefore, this court does not find a ground for awarding damages to the Plaintiff for his lack of services as evidenced from Ex.DW-1/3 (Colly). Issue no.1 is, thus, decided in favour of the Defendants.
Issue no.2: The abovesaid discussion is not being repeated for the sake of brevity, but, be read as part of the discussion in decision. Plaintiff has withdrawn the prayer for promotions and granting him increments and consequential benefits and thus, this issue stands disposed off in above-stated terms.
Issue no.3: The discussion is not being repeated for the sake of brevity, but, be read as part of the discussion in decision. Section 14(b) under Specific Relief Act mandates that no court can enforce a contract of personal service. This court, in its considered view, finds merits in the submission made by the Ld. Counsel for Defendants and holds that this contract of personal service entered between Defendant no.1 and Plaintiff cannot be enforced and consequential increments and benefits cannot be CS SCJ 52163/2016 Poorva Mehra Surender Singh Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 19 of 20 Saket Court, ND/03.12.2025 granted in light of settlements entered into between Defendant no.1 and Plaintiff which is already part of the record as Ex.DW-1/2 (Colly). Therefore, this court finds that Defendants have discharged the burden of proved imposed upon them by law. Plaintiff has not been able to prove the malice or vested interests involved on behalf of Defendant no.1.
RELIEF:-
42. In light of the above-stated discussion, facts and circumstances, suit of the Plaintiff stands dismissed.
43. Parties to bear their own costs.
44. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
45. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Pronounced in the open court (Poorva Mehra) today on 03.12.2025 Civil Judge-02, South-East, Saket Court, New Delhi It is certified that this judgment contains 20 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Poorva Mehra)
Civil Judge-02, South East,
Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS SCJ 52163/2016 Poorva Mehra
Surender Singh Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED
Page no. 20 of 20 Saket Court, ND/03.12.2025