PARVEEN KUMAR vs EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 16.01.2026 % Judgment delivered on: 22.01.2026 + LPA 313/2024 PARVEEN KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Appellant in person. versus EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. L.R. Khatana, Adv. for R-1 to R- 4. Mr. Sandeeep Mahapatra, CGSC with Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu and Mr. Tribhuvan, Advs. for R-3. Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC with Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr.Kritarth Upadhyay, Mr. Saksham Sharma and Mr. Mathy V Kutty, Advs. for R-5/UOI. + LPA 1045/2024 & CM APPL. 60976/2024 EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. L.R. Khatana, Adv. versus PARVEEN KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Respondent no.1 in person. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, CGSC with Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu and Mr.Tribhuvan, Advs. for UOI. Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed LPA 313/2024 & LPA 1045/2024 Page 1 of 52 By:SREERAM L Signing Date:22.01.2026 15:31:11 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA JUDGMENT DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J. 1. Since these two Letter Patent Appeals challenge the same judgment and order dated 06.03.2024 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant in LPA 313/2024, namely Praveen Kumar has partly been allowed, with the consent of the parties the appeals were heard together and are being decided by the common judgment and order which follows: 2. For convenience, Praveen Kumar, the appellant in LPA 313/2024 shall be referred to as the “petitioner” and the Export Inspection Council, the appellant in LPA 1045/2024 shall be referred to as the “respondent” in this judgment. FACTS 3. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was working as Technical Officer with the respondent, which is a statutory body creat