Dismissed

Santosh Kumar Singh v. Pawan Hans Ltd.

Delhi HC25 Feb 2016LPA/715/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal against a Single Judge's order rejecting a claim for enhanced remuneration. The appellant, a former contractual employee of Pawan Hans, chose not to avail an extended service tenure despite his contract being extended. The Court held there was no infirmity in the Single Judge's decision.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Single Judge's order rejecting the claim for higher remuneration.

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs Pawan Hans Ltd. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- LPA 715/2015 and CM Nos. 23707-23708/2015

¶4

SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH ..... Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr Ashwini Kumar Tiwari, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

PAWAN HANS LTD ..... Respondent

¶8

Through: Mr H. Banerjee, Adv.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

¶10

O R D E R % 25.02.2016

¶11

The only grievance urged in this proceeding is regarding the correctness of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition.

¶12

The petitioner/appellant had questioned the inter-office memo dated 23.01.2014 issued by the respondent—his erstwhile employer (Pawan Hans) which inter alia revised the terms and conditions, especially with respect to the monthly payment viz-a-viz the contract of service and stated as follows:-

¶13

“The revision shall be applicable for those who are as on date of issue of this order in employment with Pawan Hans and would be effective from 01.04.2011 or from the date of commencement of the individual contract, whichever is later provided there has been no break of interruption of their contractual appointment.”

¶14

LPA 715/2015

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

The petitioner had worked in Pawan Hans as a contractual employee for the period from 01.05.2010 to 31.05.2013. A memo dated 23.01.2014 impugned in the writ petition was made effective from 01.04.2011. The learned Single Judge rejected the appellant’s claim on the ground that he did not avail of extension of his service and since the contract had expired, he could not claim the benefit of revision in the same memo.

¶17

It is contended that the learned Single Judge fell into error in overlooking the fact that the petitioner belonged to the same class of contractual employees for whom the memo provided for enhanced remuneration. That he did not continue service was not a relevant factor; what was relevant is the fact that he was in service as on 01.04.2011. Counsel for the respondent highlighted that the appellant on his own volition did not continue in the organization even though his contract was extended and consequently, he could not make a grievance and seek the benefit of the memo on the ground that he was in employment.

¶18

In the memo of appeal, the appellant itself has stated as follows:-

¶19

“In the case of Petitioner, the Contract was not terminated, it was extended, however, the Petitioner citing personal reasons did not join the organization.”

¶20

It is evident that the appellant chose not to avail the benefit of extended tenure of his service which would have enabled him to continue and secure higher remuneration. Considering these LPA 715/2015 Page 2 of 3

¶21

circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge.

¶22

The appeal is consequently dismissed.

¶23

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

¶24

DEEPA SHARMA, J

¶25

FEBRUARY 25, 2016 bg

¶26

LPA 715/2015

¶27

Page 3 of 3

Santosh Kumar Singh v. Pawan Hans Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Singh v. Pawan Hans Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Vs the State (N.C.T) Delhi & Ors.

Keshav Securities Private Limited Vs M/S International Ceramics Limited

Jaypee Cghs Ltd. & Ors. Vs the Registrar, Coop Societies & Anr.

Vijay Tanks & Vessels Ltd. Vs Naftogaz Ltd. & Ors.

Pr. Commissioner Ofincome Tax - 3. Vs Dlf Estate Developers Ltd.

Guardian Lifecare Private Limited on Behalf Ofdirector Mr.Asutosh Garg Vs Guardian Nutrition and Health Supplements Private Limited