Full Judgement
Delhi High Court
Anil Kumar Anand vs Union Of India & Ors. on 9 April, 2024
Author: Rekha Palli
Bench: Rekha Palli
$~50-55
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 09.04.2024
50.
+ LPA 154/2024, CM APPL. 11242/2024, 11243/2024 and 11245/2024
ANIL KUMAR ANAND ..... Appellant
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
51
+ LPA 161/2024, CM APPL. 11442-45/2024 -Stay.
ANIL KUMAR ANAND ..... Appellant
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (FINANCE) &
ORS. ..... Respondents
52.
+ LPA 162/2024, CM APPL. 11446-49/2024
ANIL KUMAR ANAND ..... Appellant
versus
UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (FINANCE) &
ORS. ..... Respondents
53.
+ LPA 164/2024, CM APPL. 11512-15/2024 and CM APPL.
11520/2024
ANIL KUMAR ANAND ..... Appellant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed LPA 154/2024 & conn. matters Page 1 of 10
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:10.04.2024
16:27:03
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
54.
+ LPA 198/2024, CM APPL. 13768-71/2024
ANIL KUMAR ANAND ..... Appellant
versus
UNION OF INDIA (R-1), THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
(FINANCE) & ORS. ..... Respondents
55.
+ LPA 201/2024, CM APPL. 14482-84/2024
ANIL KUMAR ANAND ..... Appellant
versus
UNION OF INDIA (R-1), THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
(FINANCE) & ORS. ..... Respondents
For the appellant: Appellant in person.
For the respondents: Mr. Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. H.K.Naik,
Advocates for R-3/UTI in Item nos. 50 &
52.
Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate for
Respondent- LIC in item nos. 50 to 55.
Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC with Mr. RAkesh
Kumar, CGSC and with Mr. Sunil and Ms.
Shreya Jetly, Advocates for respondent no. 1
in item nos. 50 to 55.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate for
Respondent- Bank of Baroda in item nos. 50
to 55.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Mr. H.K.Naik, Mr.
Ajay Amrit Raj, Advocates for R-2 and
3/UTI in Item no. 51 and respondent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed LPA 154/2024 & conn. matters Page 2 of 10
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:10.04.2024
16:27:03
no.3/UTI in item no.53
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Mr. H.K.Naik, Mr.
Ajay Amrit Raj, Advocates for R-5/UTI in
Item nos. 54 and 55
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. These appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent seek to assail the common order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of six connected writ petitions preferred by the appellant. Vide the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petitions by holding that the respondent/Unit Trust of India Asset Management Company Ltd (hereinafter referred as 'UTI AMC') was not amenable to writ jurisdiction as it was a limited company having no governmental control.
2. The appellant, who appears in person, submits that the impugned order is wholly perverse as the learned Single Judge has proceeded on a presumption that he was employed with UTI AMC, which presumption, he contends, was incorrect as he had in his additional affidavit categorically stated that he was not an employee of UTI AMC but of Unit Trust of India (UTI). Furthermore, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that even if the writ petitions were found to be not maintainable against UTI AMC, it needs to be noted that as many as eight other respondents were arrayed in the writ petitions. His contention being that the writ
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 154/2024 & conn. matters Page 3 of 10 By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:10.04.2024 16:27:03 petitions were maintainable against the other respondents, which aspect the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Shishodia, learned senior counsel for the respondent UTI AMC, who appears on advance notice, supports the impugned order and submits that it has always been the stand of the appellant himself that he was an employee of UTI AMC. In support of this plea, he hands over copies of one of the writ petitions, being WP(C) 7119/2015, filed by the appellant, wherein he had sought quashing of the recommendation of the review DPC held on 09.01.2008 and had, consequently, prayed that he be promoted to Grade 'C' in Scale III with retrospective effect from 02.01.1995 as also to consider him for further promotions to the higher grades, with retrospective effect, upto the 'Executive Director' level in Scale VII. By drawing our attention to paragraphs 55, 122 and 147 thereof, he contends that once the appellant himself had averred in his writ petition that he had been working with the UTI AMC, he cannot now take a different stand and claim that he was an employee of UTI. Furthermore, he hands over copies of the salary slips of the appellant for the months of May 2016 and March 2018 which also show that he was drawing his salary from UTI AMC. He, therefore, contends that there is no infirmity with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who, after taking into consideration the admitted position that the shareholding of the Government of India in UTI AMC was less than 51% at that stage, opined that no writ petition was maintainable against UTI AMC and has consequently relegated the
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 154/2024 & conn. matters Page 4 of 10 By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:10.04.2024 16:27:03 appellant to seek appropriate remedies as per law. Copies of W.P.(C)7114/2015 and of the appellant's salary slips for May 2016 and March 2018, handed over in Court, are taken on record.
4. From a perusal of the record, we find that in coming to the conclusion that the appellant's employer, i.e UTI AMC, was not amenable to writ jurisdiction, the learned Single Judge had duly examined the constitution of UTI AMC, from which it was clear that it was a limited company having no governmental control. Even otherwise, from the rival submissions of the parties, what emerges is that while the appellant does not seriously dispute that UTI AMC would not fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, his primary plea is that he was an employee not of UTI AMC but of UTI, which he contends, is amenable to writ jurisdiction. He has, therefore, vehemently urged that the learned Single Judge has failed to determine this vital question as to whether the appellant was an employee of UTI AMC or UTI.
5. As noted hereinabove, the learned senior counsel for respondents has, on the other hand, urged that, taking into account the appellant's own stand in the writ petition, he was an employee of UTI AMC. Furthermore, he has also urged that the learned Single Judge was justified in not venturing into this question as the factum of the appellant being an employee of UTI AMC was, in fact, never an issue before him.
6. In order to appreciate the rival submissions of the parties in this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the averments made in the writ petitions filed by the appellant. For the sake of brevity, we are noting
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 154/2024 & conn. matters Page 5 of 10 By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:10.04.2024 16:27:03 hereinbelow only the relevant extracts of one of the six writ petitions i.e. W.P.(C) No. 7114/2015. Paragraphs 55, 122 and 147 thereof, read as under:
"55) That the petitioner is the senior most Scheduled Caste officer working with the respondent UTI AMC and the petitioner was senior enough in the relevant period, to be included in the list of candidates selected for promotion up to the level of 'Executive Director' (ED) Grade from retrospective effect, as per the instructions issued by the Government of India.
122) The Government of India declared that all the officers and other employees of erstwhile UTI shall be the employees of the UTI Asset Management Company Private Limited, which was named as the 2nd specified company, for the purpose of section 6 of the UTI (Transfer and Repeal) Act, 2002. It is functioning as the asset management company of the UTI Mutual Fund. The first specified company, the UTI Trustee Company Private Limited functions as the Trustee of the UTI Mutual Fund, whereas the second company, the UTI Asset Management Company Limited is the actual employer of the petitioner, which manages the assets of the UTI Mutual Fund, under the Mutual Fund structure, as prescribed under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Regulations, 1996.
147) It is most respectfully submitted that the respondent UTI AMC, vindictively and for malafide considerations deliberately reckoned the period till July 09, 2006 (except for the period the petitioner was sanctioned leave), as not counting for increments, pension retirement etc. and other such benefits, Whereas, no such mention was made by the respondent UTI AMC before the Hon'ble Learned Single Judge, who had delivered the Judgment in CWP 6567/2002. It is submitted that the petitioner had no liability to work with distinct legal entities, other than UTI AMC and the absence of the petitioner was because of reasons, which were beyond the control of the petitioner. Petitioner's case was a fit case for granting him extraordinary leave counting for increments, pension retirement etc. and other such benefits, but the petitioner was deliberately victimized. The copies of the four letters dated 19/6/2003, 7/7/2003, 19/82003 & 22/7/2005 Issued by respondent UTI AMC denying a posting to the petitioner with his parent institution UTI AMC, the office order no. 57 / 2006-2007 dated July 3, 2006, the letter no. UT/-
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 154/2024 & conn. matters Page 6 of 10 By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:10.04.2024 16:27:03
C-144/IR- 3(52)/2006-2007 dated July 3, 2006, a copy of the letter no. UT/ LA 2512/ Adm- 14/W1027/2006-07 dated July 13, 2006 and the Office Order no. 61/2006-2007 dated July 17, 2006 issued by the respondent in this regard are annexed hereto as Annexure P-30 Colly." (Emphasis Supplied)
7. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid averments made by the appellant in his writ petition, it is evident that it has been his consistent case before the Writ Court that he was an employee of the UTI AMC. The very same stand that the appellant was an employee of UTI AMC and was drawing salary from the said company, was also taken by the respondent. We are of the view that once it was the common stand of the parties that the appellant was an employee of UTI AMC, there was absolutely no requirement for the learned Single Judge to delve into this issue. Merely because the appellant subsequently chose to deny this fact of UTI AMC being his employer, in his additional affidavit, would not, in our view, be a ground to accept his bald submission that he was not an employee of UTI AMC but of UTI.
8. Now coming to the appellant's second plea that even if a writ petition was not maintainable against UTI AMC, the learned Single Judge ought to have taken into account that he had arrayed as many as eight other respondents who were all amenable to writ jurisdiction, and therefore, the writ petitions ought to have been considered on merits. In order to appreciate this plea of the appellant that the writ petitions also sought reliefs against the respondents other than UTI AMC, we may, at this stage, note hereinbelow, in a tabular form, the primary reliefs sought in each of the writ petitions. The same read as
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 154/2024 & conn. matters Page 7 of 10 By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:10.04.2024 16:27:03 under:
S.NO. CASE NO. RELIEF SOUGHT
1 W.P.(C) a issue a writ of mandamus or cerciorary or any other
7114/2015 appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the report
of the review DPC dated January 09, 2008.
b. issue a writ of mandamus or cerciorary or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to promote the petitioner to Grade 'C in Scale-III, with retrospective effect from January 2, 1995 for the panel year 1994-95 and to consider the petitioner for further promotions to higher Grades, with retrospective effect, as per the Promotion Policy and instructions issued by the Government of India and to give all the consequential benefits with due seniority.
2 W.P.(C) (a) set aside and quash the alterations carried out in 5283/2016 Rule 26 vide Administration Circular No. 1/2013-14 dated May 24, 2013,
b set aside and quash the Office Order no. 7/ 2016-17 dated May 10, 2016, in respect of the petitioner and set aside and quash the relieving order (email) dated May 20, 2016:
3 W.P.(C) a issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other 6042/2018 appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order of penalty of „dismissal with immediate effect‟ dated 26.2.2018, the consequent Office Order no. 90/2017-2018 dated 26.2.2018 and the order of Managing Director dated 02.5.2018, 4 W.P.(C) a. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other 950/2020 appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents directing the Respondents to grant pension to the Petitioner and pay the amount of commuted pension and monthly pension with dearness allowance, the Petitioner is entitled to, under the notified Unit Trust of India Pension Regulations 1994, subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7114/2015, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5283/2016 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6042/2018, which are pending for adjudication before this Hon'ble Delhi High Court, and to deduct the
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 154/2024 & conn. matters Page 8 of 10 By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:10.04.2024 16:27:03 amount of employers Provident Fund, which was forcibly credited in the salary account of the Petitioner, from the amount of commuted pension/monthly pension of the Petitioner, and to pay interest for the entire period of delay 5 W.P.(C) a. to issue appropriate writs, order or directions to the 965/2020 Respondents, directing the Respondents to provide all the medical facilities, benefits and reimbursement of medical expenses for domiciliary and hospitalization etc. to the Petitioner and his spouse, for their entire lifetime and till they are alive, as were promised in line with IDB1, by the erstwhile Unit Trust of India, for the retired officers and their family. under the provisions of the 'UTI Employees Voluntary Health Scheme-1991, in terms of the Administration Circular no. 43/90-91 dated 12.3.1991, issued by the Trust, the erstwhile Unit Trust of India, 6 W.P.(C) a issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other 2564/2020 appropriate writs, order or directions to the Respondents. directing the Respondents to re-compute the amount of gratuity in case of the Petitioner, on the revised basic
9. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid extracts of the writ petitions, we find that though the prayers in each of the six writ petitions are different, they all pertain to service disputes raised by the appellant while he was in employment of UTI AMC. Undeniably, the primary grievance of the appellant in all the writ petitions was regarding his termination from service vide order dated 26.02.2018 and its consequential effects. Taking into account that the appellant was, right from 2003, employed with UTI AMC, we are of the considered view that there is absolutely no merit in his plea that the writ petitions ought to have been entertained against the other respondents.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we find absolutely no ground to
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 154/2024 & conn. matters Page 9 of 10 By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:10.04.2024 16:27:03 interfere with the impugned order. The appeals being meritless, are accordingly, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that as directed by the learned Single Judge, it will be open for the appellant to avail of other appropriate remedies as permissible under law.
(REKHA PALLI) JUDGE
(GIRISH KATHPALIA, J) JUDGE APRIL 9, 2024/ib
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 154/2024 & conn. matters Page 10 of 10 By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:10.04.2024 16:27:03
