Writ Petition Civil 90 of 2016 dated 29.01.2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 90 OF 2016
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India arising out
of the termination of Service Order dated 08.12.2014 passed by
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd (IDPL), Government of India
and order dated 08.01.2016 passed by Patiala House Court at
New Delhi in CS No. 201 0f 2015) with A Prayer for
Enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH …………..PETITIONER
VERSUS
INDIAN DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS Ltd ….RESPONDENT
& ORS
I.A. NO. 01 OF 2016
APPLICATION FOR SEEKING PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND
ARGUE AS PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
I.A. NO. 02 OF 2016
APPLICATION FOR EX PARTE AD INTERIM STAY OF THE
OPERATION OF TERMINATION OF SERVICE ORDER DATED
08.12.2014 PASSED BY INDIAN DRUGS AND
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
I.A. NO. 03 OF 2016
APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
I.A. NO.04 OF 2016
APPLICATION FOR WRITTEN ARGUMENTS
PAPER BOOK
(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)
PETITIONER IN PERSON
OM PRAKASH

INDEX VOLUME I
S.N Particulars Page No.
1. Listing Performa A1-A2
2. Synopsis and list of dates B-P
3. Writ Petition (C) along with
Affidavit in support.
4. Annexure: P-1
A True copy of Translated Copy of
certified copy of order by CJM
court Begusarai, Bihar in the case
no.9P/2010 dated 31.03.2010
5. Annexure: P-2
A True copy of Translated copy of
certified copy of frivolous N.B.W
order issued in the case no.9P/2010
by Begusarai, Bihar Court dated
25.08.2010.
6. Annexure: P-3
True Copies of police complaint
made by the petitioner to the
Superintendent of Police (SP),
katihar, Bihar dated 03.08.2011
7. Annexure: P-4

8. Annexure: P-5
9. Annexure: P-6
A True copy of an email letter
dated 17.08.2011 to Mr. S.B. Sinha
by the petitioner.
10. Annexure: P-7
True Copy of Advertisement of jobs
by INDIAN DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS
LTD Management dated 05.02.2014
11. Annexure: P-8
True copy of interview letter by
the INDIAN DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS
LTD Management dated 06.05.2014
12. Annexure: P-9
True copy of offer of appointment
letter by the INDIAN DRUGS &
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD Management
dated 20.05.2014
13. Annexure: P-10
True copy of office order no.
93/2014 of joining report of
petitioner by INDIAN DRUGS &

dated 21.05.2014
14. Annexure: P-11
True copy of complaint letter to
Prime Minister Office against the
discrimination of INDIAN DRUGS &
dated 05.06.2014 by the petitioner
15. Annexure: P-12
True copy of transfer order by
INDIAN DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD
Management dated 20.06.2014
against the petitioner.
16. Annexure: P-13
True copy of email letter against
the transfer order of INDIAN DRUGS
& PHARMACEUTICALS LTD Management
by the petitioner dated 20.06.2014
17. Annexure: P-14
True copy of complaint against
suppression of whistle blower
letter to the PRIME MINISTER
OFFICE by the petitioner dated
23.06.2014
18. Annexure: P-15
True copy of CIC order dated
25.09.2014.
19. Annexure: P-16

True copy of termination of
service order by INDIAN DRUGS &
dated 08.12.2014
20. Annexure: P-17
True copy of reply of respondent
no.03, Under Secretary, Department
of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of
Chemical & Fertilizers with
reference to PRIME MINISTER OFFICE
to the petitioner dated 24.12.2014
21. Annexure: P-18
True copy of counter reply letter
by the petitioner to the
respondent no.03, under Secretary
under the intimation of PRIME
MINISTER OFFICE dated 20.01.2015
22. Annexure: P-19
True copy of PRIME MINISTER OFFICE
registered grievance of the
petitioner dated 21.01.2015
23. Annexure: P-20
True copy of PRIME MINISTER OFFICE
registered grievance of the
24. Annexure: P-21
True copy of letter from

department of Justice to the
Member Secretary, National Legal
Service Authority (NALSA) dated
13.04.2015
25. Annexure: P-22
True copy of complaint with
Government of NCT of Delhi through
online Public Grievance Monitoring
System portal by the petitioner
dated 19.04.2015
26. Annexure: P-23
True copy of letter from National
Legal Service Authority to the
Secretary, Supreme Court Legal
Service Committee dated 13.05.2015
27. Annexure: P-24
Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal
Service Committee dated 13.05.2015
28. Annexure: P-25
Legal Service Authority to and the
Member Secretary, Delhi State
Legal Services Authority dated
13.05.2015
29. Annexure: P-26

Department of Pharmaceuticals
through online Central Public
Grievances Redress and Monitoring
dated 15.05.2015
30. Annexure: P-27
through online Central Public
dated 12.08.2015
31. Annexure: P-28
True copy of reminders of
complaint with Department of
Pharmaceuticals through online
Central Public Grievances Redress
and Monitoring System portal by
the petitioner dated 14.08.2015
and 15.09.2015.
32. Annexure: P-29
True copy of letter of Dy. Labour
Commissioner (Distt-South), Govt
of NCT of Delhi to the petitioner
dated 01.06.2015
33. Annexure: P-30

True copy of reply letter dated
15.05.2015 of INDIAN DRUGS &
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD Management to
Dy. Labour Commissioner (Distt-
South), Govt of NCT of Delhi
34. Annexure: P-31
True copy of letter to the
Regional Labour Commissioner,
Central by the petitioner dated
03.06.2015
35. Annexure: P-32
True copy of email letter by the
Central Labour Commissioner
Central forwarded to Assistant
Labour Commissioner, New Delhi
through Central Public Grievance
Redress and Monitoring System
dated 04.06.2015
36. Annexure: P-33
True copy of letter by respondent
no.03, Under Secretary, Department
of Pharmaceuticals to Chairman &
Managing Director INDIAN DRUGS &
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD dated
10.06.2015
37. Annexure: P-34
True copy of follow-up letter to

PRIME MINISTER OFFICE by the
38. Annexure: P-35
no.01 dated 22.06.2015 to the
petitioner against the letter
dated 10.06.2015 of respondent
no.03.
39. Annexure: P-36
True copy of replication letter to
the respondent no.03, Under
Secretary, Department of
Pharmaceuticals by the petitioner
dated 29.06.2015
40. Annexure: P-37
True copies of Petition vide case
no. CS-201/2015 before Patiala
House Court, New Delhi filed by
41. Annexure: P-38
True copy of order passed by SCJ,
Kiran Gupta, Patiala House Court,
New Delhi dated 03.07.2015
42. Annexure: P-39

43. Annexure: P-40
44. Annexure: P-41
45. Annexure: P-42
True copy of Written Statement on
behalf of defendant no. 1 & 2
dated 07.09.2015
46. Annexure: P-43
True copy of application under
Order VII Rule 11 on behalf of
defendant no. 1 & 2 dated
07.09.2015
INDEX VOLUME II
S.N Particulars Page No.
47. Annexure: P-44
True copy of withdrawal of
application before conciliation
officer to avoid the principle of
resjudicata by the petitioner

dated 24.09.2015
48. Annexure: P-45
49. Annexure: P-46
True copy of replication against
the application of defendant no.01
& 02 under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC by the petitioner dated
03.10.2015
50. Annexure: P-47
Section 80(2) of CPC by the
51. Annexure: P-48
True copy of an application under
Section 151 of CPC by the
52. Annexure: P-49
True copy of Notice under 80
(1)CPC against Mr. Nawal Kishore
Sinha, accountant of the ADB
Sonaili Bazar, SBI branch,
Sonaili, katihar, Bihar by the
petitioner’s mother dated
02.11.2015

53. Annexure: P-50
True copy of the same Notice under
80 (1) CPC to General Manager,
Network-3, Local Head Office
(LHO), State Bank of India, Patna
by the petitioner’s mother dated
04.11.2015
54. Annexure: P-51
True copy of Notice under 80
(1)CPC against the Branch Manager
of Dwarka Sector-08 under the
intimation of General Manager,
Local Head Office(LHO), State Bank
of India, New Delhi by the
04.11.2015.
55. Annexure: P-52
56. Annexure: P-53
True copy of replication to the
Written Statement of defendant
no.01 & 02 dated 07.09.2015 filed
(with liberty) by the petitioner
before Patiala House Court dated
06.11.2015

57. Annexure: P-54
True copy of written submission of
arguments with affidavit by the
petitioner before Patiala House
Court dated 06.11.2015
58. Annexure: P-55
True copies of email complaint
letter dated 06.11.2015 to the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by
the petitioner
59. Annexure: P-56
True copies of email complaint
letter dated 06.11.2015 to Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi by the
petitioner
60. Annexure: P-57
True copy of court complaint
letter to the Hon’ble Chief
Justice of India and copy to the
Hon’ble Chief Justice of High
Court of Delhi by the petitioner
dated 09.11.2015
61. Annexure: P-58
True copy of complaint email
letter to the proprietor of Gauri
Gas Agency, Palam Gaon, Dwarka,
New Delhi under the intimation of

Executive Director of LPG, Indian
Oil Corporation, Mumbai by the
62. Annexure: P-59
True copy of reply of Mr. Ankit
Bhatia, AM-(LPG-S) under the
intimation of Chief Area Manager,
Indane Area Office, Delhi to the
63. Annexure: P-60
order VII rule 10 subject to the
provision of rule 10-A of CPC
under sub-rule (2) filed by the
petitioner before Patiala House
Court, New Delhi dated 14.12.2015
64. Annexure: P-61
65. Annexure: P-62
66. Annexure: P-63

67. Annexure: P-64
True copy of unsatisfactory reply
letter against the notice under 80
CPC by the Branch Manager of SBI,
Dwarka, Sector-8 New Delhi to the
21.12.2015
68. Annexure: P-65
True copy of acknowledgement
letter of DGM Customer Service
Department, SBI, Mumbai’s
forwarded to AGM Customer, LHO,
SBI, New Delhi for immediate
redressal dated 23.11.2015
69. Annexure: P-66
True copy of Writ petition in
letter form to the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India by the petitioner
dated 26.12.2015
70. Annexure: P-67
True copy of doubtful speed post-
delivery tracking report and speed
post complaint report dated
30.12.2015
71. Annexure: P-68
True copy of complaint letter

against ADB Sonaili Bazar, to the
Chairman of SBI, Mumbai by the
04.01.2016
72. Annexure: P-69
True copy of acknowledgement
letter of Chairman of SBI, Mumbai
forwarded to AGM Customer, LHO,
Patna for redressal and copy to
the petitioner’s mother dated
05.01.2016
73. Annexure: P-70
74. Annexure: P-71
True copy of Writ petition in
letter form by hand to the Hon’ble
Chief Justice of India by the
75. Annexure: P-72
True copy of unsatisfactory with
threat reply letter by Advocate,
SBI, Sh. Dhirendra Prasad, Civil
Court, Katihar to the petitioner’s
mother dated 11.01.2016
76. Application Under Section 151 of

the Code of Civil Procedure for
Ex-parte ad interim stay of the
Operation of the termination of
service order dated 08.12.2014
arising out of termination of
service by the C&MD of Indian
Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd,
Department of Pharmaceuticals,
Ministry of Chemical &
Fertilizers, Government of India;
as the contract of employment is
enforceable till 21.05.2017 along
with supporting affidavit.
77. Application for seeking
permission to appear and argue the
Writ Petition(C) in person along
with supporting affidavit.
78. Clarification Sought by the
Registrar of Supreme Court of
India dated 03.02.2016 and
clarification given by the
petitioner dated 08.02.2016.

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
The present Writ petition is arising out
of arbitrary and discriminatory sate
action; termination of service infringing
the fundamental rights of the petitioner
and criminal conspiracy against the
petitioner through misusing the Government
Machinery by the Chairman and Managing
Director (C&MD) of Indian Drugs and
Pharmaceuticals Ltd (IDPL), Mr. Praveen
Kumar in Bihar as well in Delhi. The
Petitioner is filing the instant Writ
petition under the Article 32 of
Constitution of India for enforcement of
Rights under Article 14, 15 and 21 of the
constitution of India against his
termination of service order dated
08.12.2014 passed by the Management of
Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited
(IDPL), a Government of India Enterprises
whereby and where State has purported an
arbitrary and discriminatory act against
the petitioner, not let the petitioner to
discharge his work, ignored and set aside
the Audi Alteram Partem Rule, Nemo judex
in causa sua and directly infringed the

Fundamental Rights under Article 14, 15
and 21 of the constitution of India and
order dated 08.01.2016 passed by Civil
Court of Patiala House Court New Delhi
whereby and where court has erred in
holding the petition for more than six
months without its jurisdiction to try
this nature of suit which has resulted in
failure of justice.
INDIAN DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD is a
declared sick Industry under Board for
Industrial and Financial Reconstruction
(BIFR) since 1992. BIFR has suggested for
change of management and Department of
Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Chemical and
Fertilizers, Government of India has
adopted a tool of Voluntary Retirement
Scheme (VRS), Voluntary Separation Scheme
(VSS) and recruitment of contractual
employees. This tool has become a tool for
an arbitrary and discriminatory action at
the hands of power elite to ensure the
livelihood of their own families, kith and
kin and to misuse this tool against the
contractual vulnerable common white color
employees.

The Chairman & Managing Director of INDIAN
DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, Mr. Praveen
Kumar, power elite of Bihar is engaged in
criminal conspiracy against the petitioner
in Bihar as well as in Delhi, which has
resulted in putting up the life and
liberty of the petitioner at stake.
31.03.2010 A frivolous suit no. 9P/2010 u/s 12 of
domestic violence Act 2005 before
Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM),
Begusarai against the petitioner after
5 years on 31.03.2010.
25.08.2010 A frivolous N.B.W (Non Bail able
Warrant) in the case no.9P/2010
against the petitioner and his ailing
mother through S.P. Begusarai dated
25.08.2010
03.08.2011 Petitioner’s letter to Superintended of
Police (SP) Katihar through email dated
03.08.2011, 29.09.2011 and 31.12.2012
against the muscle flexing of Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Mr. Jugal
Kishore Sinha.

17.08.2011 An email letter dated 17.08.2011 to
Mr. S.B. Sinha by the petitioner.
23.07.2013 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi pronounced
judgment in favor of the petitioner in
MAT.APP. 7/2012 dated 23.07.2013.
However, this judgment became an issue
of intolerance against the petitioner.
This judgment intensified the act of
criminal conspiracy against the
petitioner and his ailing mother
through misusing Government machinery
and establishing illicit network with
private and Government players in the
open market. The impact of this
judgment started offending the
petitioner from all the corners in two
states i.e. Bihar as well as Delhi
which will be recapitulated in the
subsequent dates with events.
05.02.2014 INDIAN DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD
recruitment advertisement dated
05.02.2014.
16.05.2014 An Interview Letter by the INDIAN

DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD Management
to the petitioner.
20.05.2014 Offer of Appointment dated 20.05.2014
by Indian Drugs Pharmaceuticals
Limited Management to the petitioner.
21.05.2014 Office order no. 93/2014 of joining
report issued by INDIAN DRUGS &
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD Management dated
21.05.2014 to the petitioner.
05.06.2014 A complaint letter to Prime Minister
Office by the petitioner against the
discrimination of INDIAN DRUGS &
05.06.2014.
20.06.2014 Transfer order by INDIAN DRUGS &
20.06.2014 against the petitioner.
20.06.2014 petitioner sent email letter to INDIAN
against transfer order dated
20.06.2014.

23.06.2014 The petitioner has sent a suppression
of whistle blower letter to Prime
Minister Office and a copy to the
Management through email dated
23.06.2014.
25.09.2014 Central Information Commission (CIC)
order dated 25.09.2014 against Delhi
State Legal Service Authority.
08.12.2014 Termination of service order by INDIAN
dated 08.12.2014 against the
petitioner.
24.12.2014 Respondent No.03, sent a reply of Prime
Minister Office reference dated
24.12.2014 to the petitioner.
20.01.2015 petitioner filed replication to the
respondent no. 03 dated 20.01.2015.

21.01.2015 Prime Minister Office registered the
grievances of petitioner dated
21.01.2015 and dated 03.02.2015.
13.04.2015 Department of Justice, Ministry of Law
& Justice forwarded a copy of letter
to the Member Secretary, National
Legal Service Authority (NLSA),
Jamnagar House, New Delhi dated
13.04.2015 against CIC order.
19.04.2015 Petitioner filed his online grievances
with Government of NCT of Delhi dated
19.04.2015.
13.05.2015 National Legal Service Authority
(NALSA) forwarded letter to the
Secretary, Supreme Court Legal Service
Committee, to the Secretary, Delhi
High Court Legal Service Committee and
to the Member Secretary, Delhi State
Legal Services Authority dated
13.05.2015.
15.05.2015 Petitioner has also filed his online
grievances through Central Public

System portal to the Department of
Pharmaceuticals, Government of India
to expedite his case dated 15.05.2015,
12.08.2015; reminders dated 14.08.2015
and 15.09.2015.
01.06.2015 Dy. Labour Commissioner (Distt-South),
Government of NCT of Delhi forwarded a
letter dated 01.06.2015 with an
enclosure of reply letter of INDIAN
DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD dated
15.05.2015 to the Regional Labour
Commissioner (C).
03.06.2015 Petitioner has submitted his petition
of “Illegal termination of his service
by INDIAN DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD
Management” to the Regional Labour
Commissioner, Central dated 03.06.2015
04.06.2015 The Central Labour Commissioner
Central has forwarded an email to
Assistant Labour Commissioner, New
Delhi for an early action dated
04.06.2015.

10.06.2015 A letter by respondent no.03 to
respondent no.01 dated 10.06.2015 for
reply of petitioner’s complaint dated
15.05.2015.
20.06.2015 A follow-up letter to Prime Minister
Office by the petitioner dated
20.06.2015.
22.06.2015 A feudalistic reply by respondent no.01
& 02, justifying the transfer order
right to the petitioner dated
22.06.2015.
29.06.2015 Replication filed against the reply of
respondent no.01 & 02 dated 22.06.2015
by the Petitioner dated 29.06.2015.
02.07.2015 Petitioner filed a petition before
Patiala House court dated 02.07.2015.
03.07.2015 Order passed by SCJ, Kiran Gupta,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi dated
03.07.2015.

24.07.2015.
14.08.2015.
07.09.2015; Written statement on behalf
of defendant no. 1 & 2 along with
application under Order VII Rule 11
filed dated 07.09.2015.
24.09.2015 Petitioner filed an application to
withdraw the conciliation proceedings
to avoid the principle of resjudicata
dated 24.09.2015.
03.10.2015. Petitioner filed reply to
the application of defendant no.01 & 02
under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC along
with two applications; one under
Section 80(2) of CPC and another under

Section 151 of CPC.
02.11.2015 Notice under 80 (1)CPC dated 02.11.2015
against the accountant and Branch
Manager of the SBI, ADB Sonaili Bazar,
Katihar, Bihar and General Manager,
Network-3, Local Head Office(LHO),
State Bank of India, Patna dated
04.11.2015 against an attack on family
pension account.
04.11.2015 Notice under 80 (1)CPC dated 04.11.2015
against the Branch Manager of the SBI
Branch, Dwarka Sector 08, New Delhi and
to the General Manager, Local Head
Office(LHO), State Bank of India (SBI),
New Delhi dated 04.11.2015 against the
wrong command fed in ATM machine to
hack the confidential ATM pin of the
petitioner.
06.11.2015.
09.11.2015 Petitioner submitted a court complaint
dated 09.11.2015 against Patiala House

Court, New Delhi.
30.11.2015 A complaint email letter to the Indane
Gas Agency and the reply of AM-(LPG-S)
petitioner dated 30.11.2015 against
confidential data hacking.
14.12.2015 Aggrieved by the abnormal court
proceedings and admitting the nature of
the suit, Petitioner filed an
application under order VII rule 10
subject to the provision of rule 10-A
of CPC under sub-rule (2) of CPC dated
14.12.2015.
15.12.2015.
16.12.2015.
19.12.2015.

21.12.2015 That Branch Manager of SBI, Dwarka,
Sector-8 New Delhi responded the Notice
u/s 80 CPC unsatisfactorily dated
21.12.2015 and DGM Customer Service
Department, SBI, Mumbai’s
acknowledgement letter forwarded to AGM
Customer, Local Head Office, SBI, New
Delhi dated 23.11.2015 against wrong
command fed in ATM machine.
26.12.2015 Petitioner sent a Writ petition in
Court of India through speed post dated
26.12.2015
04.01.2016 A complaint has been sent to the
Chairman of SBI, Mumbai against not
letting to deposit cash in home branch
without GRC (Green remit card) by SBI,
ADB Sonaili Bazar dated 04.01.2016 and
acknowledgement of the receipt of the
complainant by Chairman and forwarded
it to the concerned Local Head Office
(LHO) Patna, SBI for redressal dated
05.01.2016.

08.01.2016.
09.01.2016 Petitioner again submitted a Writ
petition in letter form to the Hon’ble
Chief Justice of India by hand dated
09.01.2016.
11.01.2016 That Mr. Nawal Kishore Sinha, Accountant
and Branch Manager of SBI, ADB Sonaili
Bazar, responded against the Notice u/s
80 CPC through Sh. Dhirendra Prasad,
Advocate, SBI, Civil Court, Katihar,
Bihar unsatisfactorily with threat to
institute criminal case u/s 500 IPC
against the petitioner and his mother
dated 11.01.2016.
27.01.2016 Respondent was absent. Again the same
thing was repeated by SCJ, Kiran Gupta.
She asked the petitioner either to
withdraw or to move under Article 32
without disposal of this application or
give some more time to research. I
prayed with folded hand that I cannot
afford any more date, already

application is pending since 2 months.
But she told that she can afford next
date. Hence, next date fixed for
03.02.2016. Petitioner is detained at
home without gainful employment since
two years hence requires immediate
relief to sustain his life. Petitioner
has applied for the certified copies
vide application no. 024030014552016 CA
Receipt No. 001455 (civil) dated
27.01.2016 in the Ptiala House Court.
29.01.2016 Hence the Writ Petition.

CIVIL WRIT PETITON NO.90 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
& ORS
BETWEEN
Om Prakash ………….PETITIONER
S/O Late Sh Deep Narayan Poddar
R/O RZF-893, Netaji Sbhash Marg
Raj Nagar Part-2, Palam Colony
New Delhi-110077
VERSUES
1. Indian Drugs and ….RESPONDENT No.01
Pharmaceuticals Ltd, (IDPL)
Government of India through
Shri Praveen Kumar, Chairman
and Managing Director (C&MD),
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd,
H.O. Scope Complex, Core-6, 1st
Floor
7 Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003

2.Indian Drugs and ….RESPONDENT No.02
Pharmaceuticals Ltd, (IDPL)
Shri R.L.Sharma
Personnel Manager, Indian Drugs &
Pharmaceuticals Ltd, H.O.
Scope Complex, Core-6, 1st
Floor
7 Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3.Department of ….RESPONDENT No.03
Pharmaceuticals,
Government of India
Through
Under Secretary, A.K.Karn
Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers
Section Officer-PI-IV
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
4.Ministry of Law and Justice ….RESPONDENT No.04
Department of Justice,
Ms Veena Kumari, Protection officer
(Under Protection of women against
domestic violence Act 2005) Bihar

Women development corporation, Bihar
And district administration, Begusarai
Gramin Jagrukta Abhyan Samiti
Mdhuraya Lok, Ratanpur, Vishnupur
Post+District-Begusarai-851101 Bihar
Email: bgjas1@gmail.com
5. Ministry of Law and Justice ….RESPONDENT No.05
Department of Legal Affairs,
Through Chief Secretary
Government of Bihar
Old Secretariat, Patna
Bihar, Pin-800015
6. Director General of Police ….RESPONDENT No.06
(DGP), Government of Bihar
Through Mr. Jugal Kishore Sinha
Deputy Superintendent of
Police (DSP), Katihar, Bihar
7. State Bank of India ….RESPONDENT No.07
Sh. Nawal Kishore Sinha
Accountant

ADB Sonaili Bazar,
Branch Code: 3127
State Bank of India (SBI)
Sonaili, Katihar, Bihar
&
R/O Binodpur Mohalla
Behind Agrasen Bhawan
Katihar, Bihar.
08. State Bank of India ………RESPONDENT NO.08
Branch Manager
Branch Code: 03127
ADB Sonaili Bazar
Sonaili, Katihar
Bihar-855114
09. State Bank of India ………RESPONDENT NO.09
Branch Manager
Branch Code: 17633
RZF-906 RAJ NAGAR Dwarka Sector-08,
State Bank of India (SBI)
New Delhi-110077

10. Food Supplies and …..RSEPONDENT NO.10
Consumer Affairs,
Government of NCT of Delhi
Through Sh Hari Prasad
Assistant Commissioner South West
Food Supplies and Consumer Affairs
Department, Pandit Deep Chand
Sharma, Sahkar Bhawan, Marble
Market, Sector-20, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075
11. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd ………RESPONDENT NO.11
Mr. Ankit Bhatia
AM(LPG-S) Delhi Area Office,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
(M.D.), Indane Area Office, Delhi,
2nd
Floor, World Trade Centre,
Babar Road, Barakhamba Lane,
New Delhi-110001
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION OR CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER

APPROPRIATE WRIT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ARTICLE 14, 15
and 21 OF THE CONSTITUTIION OF INDIA.
To
Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and His
Lordship's Companion Justices of the
Supreme Court of India. The Humble
petition of the Petitioner abovenamed.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1. FACTS OF THE CASSE
i) The present petition under Article
32 of the Constitution of India is being
filed to enforce the Rights under Article
14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of
India/set aside/quash/modify/ the
08.12.2014 passed by the Management of
Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited
(IDPL), a Government of India Enterprises
whereby and where the State has purported
an arbitrary and discriminatory act
against the petitioner, not let him to
discharge his work, not paid him a single
penny since his joining, ignored and set
aside the Audi Alteram Partem Rule, Nemo

judex in causa sua and directly infringed
the Fundamental Rights under Article 14,
15 and 21 of the constitution of India and
order dated 08.01.2016 passed by Civil
Court of Patiala House Court New Delhi
whereby and where the court has erred in
holding the petition for more than six
months without its jurisdiction to try
this nature of suit and criminal
conspiracy against the petitioner through
misusing the Government Machinery by the
Chairman and Managing Director (C&MD) of
Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd
(IDPL), Mr. Praveen Kumar in Bihar as well
in Delhi which has resulted in failure of
justice.
ii) Article 14 of Constitution of
India says, “The State shall not deny to
any person equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws within the
territory of India”; Article 15 of
Constitution of India says, “(1)The State
shall not discriminate against any citizen
on grounds only of religion, race, caste,
sex, place of birth or any of them (2) No
citizen shall on grounds only of religion,

race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of
them be subject to any disability,
liability, restriction or condition with
regard to (a) access to shops, public
restaurants, hotels and places of public
entertainment or (b) the use of wells,
tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of
public resort maintained wholly or partly
out of State funds or dedicated to the use
of general public (3) Nothing in this
Article shall prevent the State from
making any special provision for women and
children (4) Nothing in this Article or
in clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent
the State from making any special
provision for the advancement of any
socially and educationally backward
classes of citizens or for the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes”. Article
21 of Constitution of India says, “No
person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to the
procedure established by law”.
iii) Ms Veena Kumari, Protection
Officer, Begusarai, Bihar (Under
Protection of women against domestic

violence Act 2005) filed a frivolous
suit no. 9P/2010 u/s 12 of domestic
violence Act 2005 before Chief
Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Begusarai
against the petitioner after 5 years
on 31.03.2010. CJM took the cognizance
of the case and transferred it to the
court of Shri Atul Kumar Parhak, J.M.
1st
Class, Begusarai.
A True copy of translated copy of
certified copy of order by CJM court
Begusarai, Bihar dated 31.03.2010 is
annexed herein as Annexure P-1 VOL-
1(Pages from……………………to………………….)
iv) Mr. Gopal Kumar, Advocate, Civil
Court, Begusarai and husband of Ms
Veena Kumari, Protection Officer,
Begusarai, managed to get issued a
frivolous N.B.W (Non Bail able
Warrant) in the case no.9P/2010
against the petitioner and his ailing
mother through the court of Shri Atul
Kumar Parhak, J.M. 1st
Class,
Begusarai.

A True copy of certified copy of
frivolous N.B.W order issued in the
case no.9P/2010 by the court of Shri
Atul Kumar Parhak, J.M. 1st
Class,
Begusarai, Bihar against the
petitioner and his ailing mother
through S.P. Begusarai dated
25.08.2010 is annexed herein as
Annexure P-2 VOL-1 (Pages
from……………………to………………….)
v) Mr. Jugal Kishore Sinha, Dy
Superintendent of Police (DSP),
Katihar, was sent to the house of
petitioner’s mother dated 01.08.2011
at Sonaili, Katihar, Bihar to record
the witness of his ailing mother while
the petitioner was struggling to
submit his ex parte evidence before
the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Dwarka court in New Delhi. DSP, Jugal
Kishore Sinha, did not record the
statement of petitioner’s mother
intentionally as it was against the
respondent. However, the neighbors of
petitioner’s mother got frightened
with the sudden arrival of top level

cops without any cause. This kind of
misuse of Government Machinery for
flexing muscles power tarnished the
status of the petitioner in the
society. Petitioner strongly taken up
this matter with Superintended of
Police (SP) Katihar through email
dated 03.08.2011, 29.09.2011 and
31.12.2012 against the misuse of DSP,
Jugal Kishore Sinha against the
vulnerable petitioner.
True copies of email letter dated
from…………to………………);
from…………to………………);
31.12.2012 to SP Katihar, Bihar
against the misuse of DSP, Jugal
Kishore Sinha against the petitioner
is annexed herein as Annexure P-5 VOL-

1 (Pages from…………to………………).
vi) A True copy of an email letter
dated 17.08.2011 to Hon’ble Justice
Mr. S.B. Sinha is annexed herein as
from…………to………………)
vii) INDIAN DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD
Advertised for the Post of Dy
Manager/Sr. Personnel Executive, one
for Gurgaon and another for Head
Office (H.O.)
True Copy of Advertisement of jobs by
Management dated 05.02.2014 is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-7
VOL-1 (Pages from……………………to………………….)
viii) Petitioner appeared before the
Expert Selection committee and expert
selection committee Selected the
petitioner for Head Office An
Interview Letter was sent by the
Management to the petitioner.

True copy of interview letter by the
Management dated 06.05.2014 is
annexed herewith and marked as
from……………………to………………….)
ix) Offer of Appointment as Senior
Personnel Executive for Head Office
vide F.NO.11003(1)/2014-INDIAN DRUGS
& PHARMACEUTICALS LTD/95 awarded to
the petitioner.
True copy of offer of appointment
letter by the INDIAN DRUGS &
20.05.2014 is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-9 VOL-1 (Pages
from……………………to………………….)
x) The Petitioner was joined as Sr.
Personnel Executive on contract basis
at a consolidated salary of Rs.
22000/- (Rupees Twenty two thousand
only) per month for the period
21.05.2014 to 21.05.2017.

True copy of office order no. 93/2014
of joining report of petitioner by
Management dated 21.05.2014 is annexed
VOL-1 (Pages from……………………to………………….)
xi) Respondent no.01 & 02 did not welcome
the decision of the expert selection
committee and started harassing,
humiliating, discriminating and not
letting the petitioner to discharge
his work from the day one. Petitioner
has filed a complaint against it to
the PMO (Prime Minister Office).
True copy of complaint letter to PMO
against the discrimination of INDIAN
dated 05.06.2014 by the petitioner is
from……………………to………………….)
xii) Respondent no.01 & 02 aggrieved by the
petitioner’s Prime Minister Office

complaint dated 05.06.2014 to coerce
the petitioner, issued a transfer
order vide office order No. 119/2014
to the petitioner to join at the
Gurgaon Plant without assigning reason
thereof after keeping him without work
at Head Office (H.O.) w.e.f.
21.05.2014 to 20.06.2014.
True copy of transfer order by INDIAN
dated 20.06.2014 against the
petitioner is annexed herewith and
from………………to……………)
xiii) Respondent no.02 refused to diary
the official Note of the petitioner
against the transfer order of INDIAN
DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD
Management. Hence, petitioner sent the
same through email letter to Indian
Drugs Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
True copy of email letter against the
transfer order of INDIAN DRUGS &

PHARMACEUTICALS LTD Management by the
petitioner dated 20.06.2014 is annexed
VOL-1 (Pages from………………to…………)
xiv) Petitioner raised the dispute of mala
fide transfer order by the respondent
no.01 & 02 before Prime Minister
Office, as the respondent no.01, Mr.
Praveen Kumar, Chairman & Managing
Director of INDIAN DRUGS &
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD is power elite of
Bihar. He is from Indian Defense
Account Service (IDAS) on deputation
basis with INDIAN DRUGS &
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. The petitioner
has sent a suppression of whistle
blower letter to Prime Minister Office
and a copy to the INDIAN DRUGS &
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD Management through
email.
True copy of complaint against
suppression of whistle blower letter
to the Prime Minister Office by the

VOL-1 (Pages from………………to……………)
xv) Central Information Commission (CIC)
came out with order dated 25.09.2014
against Delhi State Legal Services
Authority. True copy of CIC order
dated 25.09.2014 is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure P-15 VOL-1
(Pages from………………to………………….)
xvi) Respondent no.01 & 02 sent a
termination letter vide office order
No. 196/2014 through post to the
petitioner declaring him an absconder
ignoring and setting aside the audi
alterm partum rule which also violates
Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
True copy of termination of service
order by INDIAN DRUGS &
from……………to……………)

xvii) Respondent No.03, Under Secretary,
Ministry of Chemical & Fertilizers,
Department of Pharmaceuticals, Shastri
Bhawan sent a reply of Prime Minister
Office reference to the petitioner
after six months without cross
examining the matter with the
petitioner.
True copy of reply of Under Secretary,
Ministry of Chemical & Fertilizers
with reference to Prime Minister
Office to the petitioner dated
from……………to……………)
xviii) Aggrieved by the one sided
decision of respondent no.03, Under
Secretary, Department of
Pharmaceuticals, Petitioner counter
filed his reply against his illegal
termination of service to the
respondent no.03, Under Secretary

under the intimation of Prime Minister
of India dated 20.01.2015.
True copy of counter reply letter by
the petitioner to the under Secretary
under the intimation of PMO dated
from……………to……………)
xix) Prime Minister Office registered the
grievances of petitioner vide
PMO/W/NA/14/0026763 dated 21.01.2015 &
PMO/W/NA/14/14/0038741 dated
03.02.2015 and forwarded to the
Government of NCT of Delhi.
True copy of PMO registered grievance
of the petitioner dated 21.01.2015 is
from……………to……………)
True copy of PMO registered grievance
of the petitioner dated 03.02.2015 is

from……………to……………).
xx) Central Information Commission order
was not complied by the Legal Aid
Institutions within the stipulated
timeframe. Hence, Department of
Justice, Ministry of Law & Justice
forwarded a copy of letter vide No. A-
60011(3)/1/2014-Admin. III/LAP (JUS),
Ministry of Law & Justice, Department
of Justice dated 13.04.2015 to the
Member Secretary, National Legal
Service Authority (NLSA), Jamnagar
House, New Delhi.
True copy of letter from department of
Justice to the Member Secretary,
National Legal Service Authority
(NALSA) dated 13.04.2015 is annexed
VOL-1 (Pages from……………to……………).
xxi) Petitioner filed his online grievances
with Government of NCT of Delhi
through Public Grievance Monitoring

System portal vide no. 201515912
dated 19.04.2015 to expedite the case.
True copy of complaint with Government
of NCT of Delhi through online Public
Grievance Monitoring System portal by
the petitioner dated 19.04.2015 is
from……………to……………).
xxii) National Legal Service
Authority (NALSA), Jamnagar House, New
Delhi forwarded a copy of letter vide
Dy.No.492(a)/NALSA/LA-2015/1166 dated
13.05.2015 to the Secretary, Supreme
Court Legal Service Committee, a copy
of letter vide Dy.No.492(b)/NALSA/LA-
2015/1156 dated 13.05.2015 to the
Service Committee and a copy of letter
vide Dy.No.492(c)/NALSA/LA-2015/1159
dated 13.05.2015 to the Member
Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services
Authority.

True copies of letter from National
Secretary, Supreme Court Legal Service
Committee dated 13.05.2015 is annexed
VOL-1 (Pages from……………to……………),
Service Committee dated 13.05.2015 is
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-24 VOL-1 (Pages from……………to……………),
Legal Service Authority to the Member
Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services
Authority dated 13.05.2015 is annexed
VOL-1 (Pages from……………to……………).
xxiii) Petitioner has also filed his
online grievances through Central
Public Grievances Redress and
Monitoring System portal to the

Government of India to expedite his
case.
True copy of complaint with Department
of Pharmaceuticals through online
Central Public Grievances Redress and
Monitoring System portal by the
True copy of complaint with Department
of Pharmaceuticals through online
Central Public Grievances Redress and
Monitoring System portal by the
True copy of reminders 14.08.2015 and
from……………to……………).
xxiv) In response to the online
Public Grievance Monitoring System, Dy.

Labour Commissioner (Distt-South),
Government of NCT of Delhi forwarded a
letter No. F.DLC/SD/15 11244 dated
01.06.2015 with an enclosure of reply
letter of INDIAN DRUGS &
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD vide F.No.
11009(4)/2015-INDIAN DRUGS &
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD/288 dated
15.05.2015 to the Regional Labour
Commissioner (C) for necessary action
by saying it pertains to the Central
jurisdiction. Petitioner was directed
to pursue his case with the Central
agency.
True copy of letter of Dy. Labour
Commissioner (Distt-South), Government
of NCT of Delhi dated 01.06.2015 is
P-29 VOL-1 (Pages from……………to……………)
True copy of reply letter dated
15.05.2015 of INDIAN DRUGS &
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD Management is
P-30 VOL-1 (Pages from……………to……………).

xxv) As per the direction of Dy. Labour
Commissioner (Distt-South), Government
of NCT of Delhi, Petitioner has
submitted his petition of “Illegal
termination of his service by INDIAN
DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD
Management” to the Regional Labour
Commissioner, Central to pursue his
case with the Central agency dated
03.06.2015.
True copy of letter to the Regional
Labour Commissioner, Central by the
VOL-1 (Pages from…… to…………).
xxvi) Petitioner has also filed his
online grievance through Central
Public Grievance Redress and
Monitoring System to the Ministry of
Labour & Employment, Government of
India vide MOLBR/E/2015/01338 to
expedite his case. The Central Labour
Commissioner Central has forwarded an
email to Assistant Labour

Commissioner, New Delhi for an early
action dated 04.06.2015.
True copy of email letter by the
Central Labour Commissioner Central
forwarded to Assistant Labour
Commissioner, New Delhi through
Central Public Grievance Redress and
Monitoring System dated 04.06.2015 is
Annexure P-32 VOL-1 (Pages from……
to…………).
xxvii) In response to online Central
Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring
System complaint, Department of
Pharmaceuticals has sought a reply from
Shri Praveen Kumar, Chairman & Managing
Director, INDIAN DRUGS &
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD vide
F.No.54016(1)/2013-PI-IV dated
10.06.2015 under the intimation to
petitioner.
True copy of letter by Under Secretary,
Department of Pharmaceuticals to

CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN
DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD trough
online Central Public Grievance Redress
and Monitoring System portal dated
from…… to…………).
xxviii) Aggrieved by the pending status of
his case for more than one year, the
petitioner has sent a follow up letter
to the Prime Minister Office dated
20.06.2015.
True copy of follow-up letter to Prime
Minister Office by the petitioner
(Pages from…… to…………).
xxix) In response to Central Public
Grievance Redress and Monitoring
System, Prime Minister Office, and
Delhi Government’s Administrative
Reforms online complaint portal,
Respondent no.01 & 02 have sent a

feudalistic reply justifying the
transfer order right as the petitioner
was found incompetent for Head
Office, however, he was found
competent for Gurgaon Plant vide F.No.
11011(3)/2014-INDIAN DRUGS &
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD/375 dated
22.06.2015.
no.01, CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
INDIAN DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD to
the petitioner against the letter
dated 10.06.2015 of respondent no.03,
Under Secretary, Department of
Pharmaceuticals dated 22.06.2015 is
to…………).
xxx) Petitioner has counter field his reply
against the feudalistic and without
material evidence ground of respondent
no.01 & 02’s reply which has resulted
in failure of justice. Petitioner has
proved the ground of illegal

termination by the respondent no.01 &
02 and justified the ground of
reinstatement with full back wages in
his counter reply dated 29.06.2015.
True copy of counter reply letter to
the respondent no.03, Under Secretary,
Department of Pharmaceuticals by the
xxxi) Aggrieved by the no timely action
by the respondent no.03.; feudalistic
reply of the Respondent no.01 & 02;
arbitrary and discriminatory action of
state; ignoring and setting aside the
Audi Alterm Partum Rule which violates
the Article 14 of the constitution of
India and in the absence of any
specific statue or principles
governing the employment and working
conditions of white-collar workers
except the basic provisions applicable
under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
and judicial precedents, regarding the

legality and sanctity of the
contractual termination provisions;
petitioner moved to Patiala House
court on 02.07.2015 after exploring
the internal available remedies
through Administrative reform
mechanisms.
xxxii) That the petition was marked to
District Judge however the filing
counter after consulting internally,
asked the petitioner to mark it to
Senior Civil Judge (SCJ) and come
after one day because maintainability
of the suit is questionable, hence
required another one day for
assessment.
True copies of Petition vide case no.
CS-201/2015 before Patiala House
Court, New Delhi filed by petitioner
xxxiii) That the petitioner appeared
before the SCJ Kiran Gupta, Patiala

House Court, New Delhi at 14:00 PM on
the next day dated 03.07.2015. After
hearing at length, the petitioner was
informed that the suit was
maintainable in this court, hence suit
was instituted. That the court issued
summons PF/RC to the defendant No.01 &
02 only and has deliberately exempted
and not served the summons PF/RC to
the defendant No.03, Department of
Pharmaceutical, Ministry of Chemical &
Fertilizers, Government of India, who
happened to be the direct
administrative controller of Indian
Drugs Pharmaceuticals Ltd. That the
suit should have been returned in July
2015 itself, if the Hon’ble Patiala
House court had no jurisdiction to try
this nature of suit.
Kiran Gupta, Patiala House Court, New
Delhi dated 03.07.2015 is annexed

xxxiv) The date 24.07.2015 was fixed for
settlement. However Respondent no.01
& 02 neither appeared before the court
nor filed Vakalatnama. Ms. Sushma
Singh, legal consultant on behalf of
defendant No. 1 & 2 appeared before
the court and extended the date. She
neither raised the issue of complete
set of documents nor asked for
complete set of documents.
xxxv) Counsel for defendant no. 01 & 02
filed Vakalatnama after one month with
an excuse that complete set of
documents were not supplied by the
petitioner dated 14.08.2015.

xxxvi) Written statement on behalf of
defendant no. 1 & 2 along with
application under Order VII Rule 11
filed dated 07.09.2015.
VOL-1 (Pages from…… to…………);
True copy of Written Statement on
behalf of defendant no. 1 & 2 dated
True copy of application under Order
VII Rule 11 dated 07.09.2015 is
to…………).
xxxvii) As per the direction of order

dated 07.09.2015, Petitioner explored
the possibility of compromise between
the parties through conciliation
officer, Dy Chief Labour Commissioner
Central(C) as the date was fixed for
amicable settlement. The respondent
no.01 & 02 again came out with the
same excuse of non-maintainability and
no jurisdiction. Hence, Petitioner
filed an application to withdraw the
conciliation proceedings to avoid the
principle of resjudicata dated
24.09.2015.
True copy of withdrawal of application
before conciliation officer to avoid
the principle of resjudicata by the
VOL-II (Pages from…… to…………).
xxxviii) Petitioner filed reply to the
application of defendant no.01 & 02
under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC as well
as settlement of issues and also
explored the possibility of compromise
between the parties along with two

applications. One application under
Section 80(2) of CPC seeking leave of
the court on the ground of urgency or
immediate relief to allow the filling
of the present suit without serving
notice under Section 80(1) of CPC and
another application under Section 151
of CPC dated 03.10.2015.
VOL-II (Pages from…… to…………),
True copy of replication against the
application of defendant no.01 & 02
under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC dated
marked as Annexure P-46 VOL-II (Pages
from…… to…………),
True copy of application under Section
80(2) of CPC by the petitioner dated
from…… to…………),

True copy of an application under
Section 151 of CPC by the petitioner
and marked as Annexure P-48 VOL-II
xxxix) After filing the reply, petitioner
went to his home town, Sonaili,
Katihar, Bihar on the eve of Durga Puja
with his ailing mother. Petitioner’s
mother family pension account was
attacked, an attempt was made to hack
the confidential ATM Pin of the
petitioner and his mother through Mr.
Nawal Kishore Sinha, R/O Binodpur
Muhalla, Behind Agrasen Bhawan,
Katihar, posted as an accountant at
State Bank of India, ADB Sonaili Bazar,
Sonaili, Katihar, Bihar. Notice under
80 (1)CPC dated 02.11.2015 has been
served against the accountant and
Branch Manager of the said branch under
the intimation of General Manager,
Network-3, Local Head Office(LHO),
State Bank of India, Patna dated
04.11.2015 against the attack on saving

bank family pension account of the
petitioner’s mother and an attempt to
hack the confidential ATM Pin of the
petitioner’s mother.
True copy of Notice under 80 (1)CPC
dated 02.11.2015 has been served
against Mr. Nawal Kishore Sinha,
accountant and Branch Manager of the
ADB Sonaili Bazar, SBI branch, Sonaili,
katihar, Bihar is annexed herewith and
from…… to…………)
True copy of same Notice General
Manager, Network-3, Local Head
Office(LHO), State Bank of India, Patna
xl) Petitioner on his return from
Bihar to Delhi used his ATM at his
nearest ATM machine at Dwarka Sector-08,
SBI branch which was technically
manipulated and being fed wrong command
to hack the confidential ATM PIN of the

petitioner and his mother. Notice under
80 (1)CPC dated 04.11.2015 has been
served against the Branch Manager of the
said branch under the intimation of
General Manager, Local Head Office(LHO),
State Bank of India (SBI), New Delhi.
True copy of Notice under 80 (1)CPC has
been served against the Branch Manager
of Dwarka Sector-08 under the intimation
of General Manager, Local Head
Office(LHO), State Bank of India, New
Delhi against wrong command fed in the
ATM machine with an attempt to hack the
confidential ATM Pin of the petitioner
and his mother dated 04.11.2015 is
P-51 VOL-II (Pages from……………….to……………).
xli) The date 06.11.2015 was fixed for
reply/arguments on two applications
filed by the Petitioner. As per the
order dated 03.10.2015 Petitioner again
filed replication (with liberty) to the
Written Statement of defendant along
with written submission of arguments
with affidavit. However, SCJ Kiran

Gupta was not present in the open court
and Ahlmed was giving next date as the
P.O. was on leave due to death of her
father in law. Surprisingly, Ahlmed
retained one of the case of others for
hearing on the same date in front of
the eyes of the petitioner and ignored
the ground of urgency or immediate
relief of the Petitioner and extended
the date of hearing on 15.12.2015 as
the next date of hearing even after a
strong protest by the petitioner for
early date of hearing in the month of
November 2015. Petitioner crosschecked
this information with the website of
delhidistrictcourt.nic.in and did not
find that SCJ Kiran Gupta was on leave.
Petitioner immediately, reported it to
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi through
email in the evening of 06.11.2015.
True copy of order passed by SCJ, Kiran
Gupta, Patiala House Court, New Delhi
(Pages from…… to…………),

True copy of replication (with liberty)
to the Written Statement of defendant
no.01 & 02 dated 07.09.2015 filed by
True copies of written submission for
arguments with affidavit filed by
06.11.2015 to the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India is annexed herewith and marked
as Annexure P-55 VOL-II (Pages from……
to…………),
06.11.2015 to the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-56 VOL-II (Pages from……
to…………).
xlii) Petitioner submitted a court
complaint dated 09.11.2015 through

speed post to the Hon’ble Chief Justice
of Supreme Court of India and its copy
to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High
Court of Delhi.
True copy of court complaint letter to
the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and
copy to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of
High Court of Delhi by the petitioner
xliii) Mr Hari Prasad, Assistant
Commissioner, Food Supplies and
consumer affairs, South West, Dwarka,
New Delhi, Government of NCT of Delhi,
gave a suspected phone call
(011-28050554) on 28.11.2015 to the
petitioner without any complaint,
exactly at the time of cylinder
delivery by Indane LPG delivery man to
verify the petitioner, hence attacked
the domestic LPG Gas Agency of
petitioner, Gauri Enterprises, Dwarka,
New Delhi to hack the confidential data
of petitioner as it is Aadhar linked

with bank account of the petitioner in
Delhi. Petitioner sent an email to the
proprietor of Gas Agency under the
intimation of Executive Director, LPG.
In response to his email Mr. Ankit
Bhatia, AM-(LPG-S) sent an
unsatisfactory reply hiding the truth
in the garb of sudden technical changes
in the software under the intimation of
Mr. R.N. Dutta, Chief Area Manager,
Indane Area Office, Delhi.
True copy of email letter to the
proprietor of Gauri Gas Agency, Palam
Gaon, Dwarka, New Delhi under the
intimation of Executive Director of
LPG, Indian Oil Corporation, Mumbai
dated 30.11.2015 by the petitioner is
P-58 VOL-II (Pages from…… to…………)
True copy of reply by AM-(LPG-S) under
the intimation of Chief Area Manager,
VOL-II (Pages from…… to…………).

xliv) Petitioner aggrieved by the
abnormal proceedings of the court and
admitting the nature of the suit, filed
an application under order VII rule 10
of CPC under sub-rule (2) to return the
plaint for complying with the
requirements under section 80(1) of CPC
with a permission and liberty to file
the present suit before the appropriate
jurisdiction, before Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, in writ form, under
Article 32 of Constitution of India,
within a limitation of time period of
90 days.
True copy of application under order
VII rule 10 subject to the provision of
rule 10-A of CPC under sub-rule (2)
filed by the petitioner before Patiala
House Court, New Delhi dated 14.12.2015
is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-60 VOL-II (Pages from……
to…………).
xlv) P.O. was on leave on 15.12.2015 as

the date of hearing fixed for
consideration on the application U/o 7
Rule 10 of CPC.
True Copy of Order passed by Reader,
xlvi) Order dated 16.12.2015 is to Put
up for consideration on 19.12.2015 on
the application under order VII rule 10
of CPC under sub-rule (2) to return the
plaint by the petitioner.
xlvii) Order dated 19.12.2015 is again to
put up for consideration on 08.01.2016.
Counsel for respondent no.01 & 02 who

were busy in adjourning the court till
date became active to stop the
application under Order VII Rule 10.
Counsel for respondent no.01 & 02
started mounting pressure over
petitioner to withdraw the petition,
dictating to invoke Article 226 instead
of Article 32, pressurizing to transfer
the petition to Delhi High Court,
emphasizing to amend the para 1, 2 and
3 of the application, which are against
the respondent no.01 & 02 and the
court. Counsels on behalf of the
respondent no.01 & 02, Mr. Pankaj
Aggarwal and Ms Sushma Singh
categorially warned the Judge in front
of the petitioner not to allow the
application under order VII Rule 10
without withdrawal of para 1, 2 and 3
from the application, otherwise all
three would be trapped badly i.e.
Judicial Staff, Judge and counsels on
behalf of the respondent no.01 & 02.

xlviii) That Branch Manager of SBI,
Dwarka, Sector-8 New Delhi responded
the Notice u/s 80 CPC unsatisfactorily,
passing the onus of responsibility and
accountability to the ATM vendor
without answering the reason of wrong
command fed in the ATM machine and
presenting the misleading answer beside
the point raised in the complaint. He
quotes, “we regret for the
inconvenience caused to you while
withdrawing money from ATM due to
availability of only Rs. 100
denomination notes in ATM as high value
notes were exhausted. We further advise
that since the ATM services are out
sourced, we have taken up the matter
strongly with the vendor. However,
charges recovered for excess ATM
transactions have already refunded to
you on 24.11.2015”. However, setting a
Wrong command for limiting the
withdrawal of Rs. 1000/- at one time in
one clique has nothing to do with low

value denomination of currencies. Even
if there is a low value denomination of
currencies fed in ATM machine, one can
withdraw Rs. 22000/- in one
transaction; machine cannot stop him
from dispensing Rs. 22000/- with low
value denomination of currencies. While
in the present case machine was
stopping the customer from dispensing
Rs. 22000/- even with low value
denomination of currencies at one time
transaction. It is admitted that the
charges recovered for excess ATM
transactions have been refunded after
series of complaint and after
intervention of DGM, Customer Service
Department, Mumbai vide ticket nos.
AM73321396997, AM73321415237,
AM73321437018, AM73321453029, and
AM73321477844, routed through the Delhi
Cantt Branch as the said ATM machine ID
NO: S1BJ000733445 falls under the
maintenance jurisdiction of Delhi Cantt
Branch. However, the main crucial
points regarding external and internal
audit report of ATM machine server and
CCTV footage of ATM machine between

10:29 AM to 14:29 PM dated 29.10.2015
were neither answered nor supplied any
materials against the said complaint
either by Local Head Office Delhi or by
Branch Manager, SBI, Dwarka sect-08,
New Delhi.
True copy of unsatisfactory reply
letter by the Branch Manager of SBI,
Dwarka, Sector-8 New Delhi to the
petitioner’s mother dated 21.12.2015 is
P-64 VOL-II (Pages from…… to…………)
True copy of acknowledgement letter by
DGM Customer Service Department, SBI,
Mumbai’s forwarded to AGM Customer,
Local Head Office, SBI, New Delhi dated
from…… to…………)
xlix) In the backdrop of the abnormal
court proceedings dated 19.12.2015,
Petitioner sent a Writ petition in the
Court of India through speed post with

a prayer to issue an appropriate Writ
for enforcement of Fundamental Rights
of the petitioner under Article 14, 15
and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The speed post tracking report
generated by the www.indiapost.gov.in
also seems doubtful. As per the speed
post report, the item was received by
NSH New Delhi on 29.12.2015 and
delivered the item on 28.12.2015.
Petitioner lodged a complaint vide
complaint no. 10006694282 on 28.12.2015
when the item was not delivered on
26.12.2015 by the Raj Nagar-II S.O. and
the item was kept with the same S.O
till 28.12.2015.
True copy of Writ petition in letter
form to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India by the petitioner dated
from…… to…………);
True copy of speed post-delivery
tracking report and speed post
complaint report dated 30.12.2015 is

P-67 VOL-II (Pages from…… to…………).
l) That the property of the
petitioner’s mother in Bihar being
attacked through SBI Bank. The house of
petitioner’s mother has already been
deserted and turned into symmetry
ground with the help of local leaders
since 2004 viz. Ram Karam Mahto,
Narayan Mahto, Biswanath Bubna, Shyamar
Bubna, Bunty Bubna (owner of petrol
pump in sonaili) which is on record
with SLP(C) N0.9854/2012, SLP(C) N0.
9483/2013 and SLP(C) N0. 19073/2013
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India. Now, agricultural field
attendant of the petitioner’s mother is
being stopped by the SBI, ADB Sonaili
Bazar, branch from depositing the cash
in her family pension account in the
absence of green remit card (GRC).
However, GRC is not mandatory and it is
applicable for non-home branch. A
complaint dated 04.01.2016 has been
sent to the Chairman of SBI, Mumbai

against this cause of action and
Chairman of SBI, Mumbai has
acknowledged the receipt dated
05.01.2016 of the complainant and
forwarded it to the concerned Local
Head Office (LHO) Patna, SBI for
redressal.
True copy of complaint letter to the
Chairman of SBI, Mumbai by the
petitioner’s mother dated 04.01.2016 is
P-68 VOL-II (Pages …… to…………)
True copy of reply of Chairman of SBI,
Mumbai to the petitioner’s mother dated
…… to…………).
li) Order dated 08.01.2016 is again
to put up for consideration on
27.01.2016. Again the same arguments of
dated 19.12.2015 were repeated. Again,
SCJ, Counsel on behalf of Respondent
no.01 & 02 Mr. Pankaj Aggarwal and Ms
Sushma Singh and other senior advocates

were called on for assistance by the
SCJ; kept on pressurizing the
petitioner on the same earlier points,
to withdraw the petition, to invoke
Article 226 instead of Article 32, to
transfer the petition to Delhi High
Court, to amend the para 1, 2 and 3 of
the application under Order VII Rule
10, which are against the respondent
no.01 & 02 and the court.
lii) In the backdrop of the repeated
abnormal court proceedings dated
08.01.2016; Petitioner again submitted
a Writ petition in the letter form
dated 09.01.2016 to the Hon’ble Chief
Justice of India by hand this time with
a prayer to issue an appropriate Writ
for enforcement of Fundamental Rights
of the petitioner under Article 14, 15
and 21 of the Constitution of India.

True copy of Writ petition in letter
form to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of
India by the petitioner dated
from…………….to……………).
liii) That Mr. Nawal Kishore Sinha,
Accountant and Branch Manager of SBI,
ADB Sonaili Bazar, Branch code:3127,
Sonaili, Katihar responded against the
Notice u/s 80 CPC through Sh. Dhirendra
Prasad, Advocate, SBI, Civil Court,
Katihar, Bihar unsatisfactorily with
threat and denying the factual evidence
which has been captured by the software
of SBI core banking system, threatening
to render apologies against the notice
under 80 CPC otherwise to face criminal
case u/s 500 of IPC against the
petitioner and his pensioned mother
both, by self-quoting, “ I therefore,
though this reply notice request you to
apologize in writing to my client to
otherwise criminal case u/s 500 of IPC

against you and your clientess may be
instituted”. He denied that the family
pension account was put on Know Your
Customer (KYC) alert. He also denied
that KYC alert was removed after
lodging complaint vide ticket no.
CS312721079100 and CS312721082478 &
CR312721082431 CS312721698392.
However, he defended the technical
manipulation and wrong command fed in
ATM machine at Dwarka, New Delhi while
it is an admitted fact by the reply of
Dwarka branch that the matter has been
taken up strongly with the ATM vendor,
establishes his nexus with Dwarka
Branch. Moreover, he advocated for
transferring the family pension account
from Sonaili to New Delhi as he coined
“home branch”; while petitioner’s
mother is aborigine of Sonaili, Katihar
Bihar having lifetime acquired property
over there and which is also defeating
the very purpose of core banking system
of SBI. He further threatened to keep
your mouth shut from expressing the
truth by self-quoting, if you continue
to do so, “your pen may lost you dear”.

Service track record of Mr. Nawal
Kishore Sinha is self-explanatory that
he has been demoted from Branch Manager
to Accountant and transferred from
Morshanda, SBI Branch, Katihar to ADB
Sonaili Bazar, Katiahr. Nevertheless,
he admitted the fact of direct refusal
by the Branch Manager to open the ATM
machine for withdrawal of pension on
26.10.2015 at sonaili home branch as
she was unable to climb upstairs by way
of not answering the para no. 03 of the
complaint in notice u/s 80 CPC and
misled it by way of self-quoting beside
the point raised in the plaint, “my
client has also provided your customer
with an ATM card for withdrawal of
pension and on the basis of the said
card your customer has been withdrawing
the pension amount. She has also
recently withdrawn Rs. 23,000/- on
5.12.15 from ATM machine and hence it
is absolutely false to state that no
ATM facility was given to your
customer”.
True copy of unsatisfactory with threat

reply letter by Mr. Nawal Kishore
Sinha, Accountant and Branch Manager of
SBI, ADB Sonaili Bazar, Sonaili,
Katihar, Bihar against the notice under
80 CPC through Advocate, SBI, Sh.
Dhirender Prasad, Civil Court, Katihar
to the petitioner’s mother dated
2. QUETION(S) OF LAW
That the main questions of Law to be decided in
this petition are:-
a)WHETHER Chairman and Managing Director of a
Government owned sick Industry cannot let
the contractual white color employee to
discharge his work on the ground of sex,
economic category and class and terminate
his service without payment of single penny,
who is duly selected by an expert selection
committee, does not infringes his
fundamental rights directly under Article
14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
b)WHETHER the contract of employment

consciously entered into by the white color
employee with the employer would result in a
without notice to the white color employee
that his employment was terminated as per
the terms of contract, the same was liable
to be termination without conducting
domestic enquiry on the expiry of 90 days,
while the contract is continuing?
c)WHETHER the protection of Audi Alteram
Partem Rule, Nemo judex in causa sua is
available to an employee who was aware of
his appointment on purely contractual basis
and for specific period and is liable for
termination at any time without assigning
any reason by giving 30 days’ notice or 30
days consolidated remuneration in lieu
thereof by either side, while the contract
is continuing?
d)WHETHER a Government owned sick Industry
after a recommendation for change of
Management by BIFR, adopted a tool for
hiring contractual employees can afford to
declare the contractual white color employee
as a deadwood without complying with Audi
Alteram Partem Rule, Nemo judex in causa sua

and the relief of reinstatement along with
back wages cannot be granted to a
contractual white color employee of a
Government owned sick Industry, while the
contract is continuing?
e)WHETHER a Government owned sick Industry can
afford to misuse a tool of contractual
employees for securing the livelihoods of
families, kith and kin of power elite and on
the other hand exercising this tool against
infringing the fundamental rights of the
common man (contractual vulnerable white
color employees) by the power elite?
f)WHETHER the increasing magnitude of the
contractual white color employees due to
Government Policy in the present market
scenario in absence of any specific
legislation which governs the employment and
working conditions of white color workers
makes them vulnerable at the hands of Power
elite to be left orphan/unprotected?
g)WHETHER the Senior Civil Judge (SCJ),
Patiala House Court should have retained the

suit for more than six months without its
jurisdiction to try this nature of suit?
h)WHETHER the direct or indirect denial of
legal aid by the legal aid institutions in
India does not infringes the fundamental
rights of the poor citizen under article 14
of the Constitution of India?
i)WHETHER the misuse of Government Machinery
by the power elite of Government owned sick
Industry against the vulnerable contractual
white color employee with an ulterior motive
to break him down, does not amount to
criminal conspiracy against him, does not
amount his life and liberty at stake, does
not require fair enquiry against these
misused public authorities and does not
require punitive action against these
misused public authorities?
3. GROUNDS
That being aggrieved by the termination of
service order dated 08.12.2014 and
subsequent order dated 08.01. 2016, the
petitioner is challenging the same on the
following amongst other grounds: -

A.BECAUSE the Management of IDPL has not let
the petitioner to work and discharge his
duty and terminated the services of the
petitioner out of mala fide intention,
discriminated him on the ground of sex,
economic category and social class, not
paid him a single penny since his joining,
ignored and set aside the principle of Audi
Alteram Partem Rule, Nemo judex in causa
sua and breached the contract of
employment between the employer and
employee one sided, which amounts to
infringement of the fundamental rights of
the employee under Article 14, 15 and 21 of
the Constitution of India.
B.BECAUSE Petitioner was kept without any
work w.e.f. 21.05.2014 to 20.06.2014 at
Head Office, Scope Complex, Lodhi Road, New
Delhi of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals
Ltd, not let him to attend any staff
meeting, only two junior females were
allowed to attend staff meeting, petitioner
being discriminated to promote closest
female junior personnel executive of

Chairman & Managing Director, aged about
32, inflicted insubordination through
female junior personnel executive; issued
transferred order without assigning any
reason thereof dated 20.06.2014 in
retaliation of Prime Minister office
complaint against such discrimination by
the petitioner dated 05.06.2014, refused to
diary official note of the petitioner
against the mala fide transferred order in
the evening of 20.06.2014, which amounts to
the petitioner under Article 15 of the
Constitution of India.
C.BECAUSE Petitioner cannot take any gainful
employment during the pendency of the case
or during the continuation of the contract
period till 21.05.2017, whichever is
earlier; Patiala House Court at New Delhi
retained the petition without its
jurisdiction to try this nature of suit for
more than 6 months and withheld the
application U/o 7 Rule 10 of CPC for more
than 2 months under consideration;
virtually detaining the petitioner at home
without livelihood, which amounts to

the petitioner under Article 21 of the
D.BECAUSE the respondent no.01 is not letting
the petitioner to live peacefully either in
Delhi or in Bihar putting his life and
liberty at stake through proxy war with an
ulterior motive to usurp his mother’s
property in Bihar, as the petitioner is now
left with only one member in his family
i.e. ailing mother.
E.BECAUSE the Management of IDPL has failed
to appreciate that the protection of
principle of Audi Alteram Partem Rule, Nemo
judex in causa sua is available to an
employee who was aware of the fact that his
appointment is purely on contractual basis
and for specific period and liable for
termination, while the contract is
continuing, which amounts to infringement
of the fundamental rights of the petitioner
under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.

F.BECAUSE the Management of IDPL has failed
to appreciate that the IDPL is a Government
owned declared sick Industry and cannot
afford to ignore the principle of Audi
Alteram Partem Rule, Nemo judex in causa
sua, while the contract is continuing.
G.BECAUSE the Management of IDPL has failed
to appreciate that it is a settled law that
a contractual employee cannot be made to
suffer on account of the negligence of its
Management, while the contract is
continuing.
H.BECAUSE the termination of service order
dated 08.12.2014 is purely based on
arbitrary and discriminatory state action
arising out of mala fide intention, which
amounts to infringement of the fundamental
rights of the petitioner under Article 14
of the Constitution of India.
I.BECAUSE the respondent no.03, direct
administrative controller of IDPL has not
taken timely meaningful action against the
termination of service order even after

repeated replications dated 20.01 2015 and
29.06.2015 filed by the petitioner; closed
the online case vide DPHAM/E/2015/00066
15.05.2015 with a wrong noting
“Reply forward to Complainant vide letter N
o. 11011(3)/2014-IDPL/375 dated 22.06.2015
after settlement his all dues”, which has
resulted in miscarriage of justice.
J.BECAUSE the IDPL Management has transferred
the petitioner without assigning any reason
thereof with mala fide intention of
victimization and exercise of colorable
power vested in them while dispute was
pending with Prime Minister Office.
K.BECAUSE the IDPL Management has failed to
appreciate that during the pendency of the
dispute, change in the service conditions
of an employee has been held as illegal.
L.BECAUSE the IDPL Management has not
supplied any material evidence against the
newly framed and fabricated ground of
incompetency for Head Office and competency

for Plant justifying the transfer order of
the petitioner after 1 year.
M.BECAUSE the IDPL Management has not
supplied any material evidence against
their fabricated ground of “absconder” for
termination of service of the petitioner.
No disciplinary action has been initiated
and placed on record against the absconding
employee in between 20.06.2014 to
08.12.2014. All of sudden, petitioner has
been intimated with termination letter
dated 08.12.2014 through speed post.
N.BECAUSE the IDPL Management has kept the
petitioner without salary w.e.f. 21.05.2014
to till date which has caused huge damage
and loss to the career of the petitioner
directly. The respondent no.01 further
aggravated the damage and loss by way of
misusing the Government Machinery.
O.BECAUSE the IDPL Management has always kept
on changing its stand from adjusting the
due salary of the petitioner with Notice

period to releasing the salary with feudal
note after 1 year establishing the
fundamentals of corporate lumpen ism. The
cheque has been made in favor of wrong name
to stop it from bank clearance reinforces
its mala fide intention against the
petitioner.
P.BECAUSE the IDPL Management has ignored the
law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, it has set the principle of awarding
damages and loss compensations in breach of
contract. In its landmark judgment of S.S.
Shetty v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1958 SC
12: (1958) SCR 442, a principle of awarding
damages has been set forth. In other
judgments of Pannalal Jankidas v. Mohanlal,
AIR 1951 SC 145: (1950) SCR 979, Hon’ble
court has directed, the party in breach
must make compensation in respect of the
direct consequences flowing from the breach
caused.
Q.BECAUSE the termination of service order
dated 08.12.2014 is against the larger
interest of common contractual white color

employees and undue advantage to the power
elite respondent herein.
R.BECAUSE the termination of service order
has larger ramifications of a wrong
example/precedent set by the State who
happens to be a natural guardian of the
citizen. In turn, the private players will
learn from the act of the state to practice
it against its own unprotected contractual
white color employees.
S.BECAUSE the termination of service order
may unearth the previous contractual
employee’s record of IDPL who have been
victimized by the arbitrary and
discriminatory action of IDPL Management.
One of them is Mr. D.K. Patra’s case of
illegal termination case. Previous record
may help this Hon’ble Court to establish
the extent of arbitrary and discriminatory
act of the IDPL Management as to how they
have vitiated the working environment of a
sick company for their own vested interest.

T.BECAUSE the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case
titled Central Inland Water Transport
Corpn. Ltd Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly AIR 1986
SC 1571, wherein the court has held that a
clause in contract of employment
stipulating that the service of an employee
can be terminated by giving him notice for
a certain specified period of time without
assigning any reason is void under section
23 of the Indian Contract Act as being
opposed to public policy and is also ultra
vires Article 14 of the Constitution to the
extent that it confers upon the employer
right to terminate the employment of a
permanent employee by giving him notice for
specified period of time or paying him
equivalent of wages in lieu of such notice
also offends the spirit of Directive
Principles contained in Article 39(a) and
41 of the Constitution.
U.BECAUSE in the case of Executive Committee
of Vaish Degree College, Shamli & Ors. v.
Lakshmi Narain & Ors. AIR 1976 SC 888
Bhagwati, J. observed a change from the
traditional approach to such cases, where,
in reality, the contract is not a contract

of personal service, as the in the case of
a large scale industry or enterprise. At
page 902, the learned Judge observed:
"This rationale obviously can have
application only where the contract of
employment is a contract of personal
service involving personal relations. It
can have little relevance to conditions of
employment in modern large-scale industry
and enterprise or statutory bodies or
public authorities where there is
professional management of impersonal
nature. It is difficult to regard the
contract of employment in such case as a
contract of personal service saves in
exceptional cases. There is no reason why
specific performance should be refused in
cases of this kind where the contract of
employment does not involve relationship of
personal character. It must be noted that
all these doctrines of contract of service
as personal non-assignable, unenforceable,
and so on, grew up in an age when the
contract of service was still frequently a
personal relation between the owner of a
small workshop or trade or business and his
servant. The conditions have now vastly

changed and these doctrines have to be
adjusted and reformulated in order to suit
needs of a changing society. We cannot
doggedly hold fast to these doctrines which
correspond to the social realities of an
earlier generation far removed from ours.
We must rid the law of these anachronistic
doctrines and bring it in accord with the
felt necessities of the times."
At page 903, the learned Judge observed:
"It is, therefore, necessary and I venture
to suggest, quite possibly, within the
limits of the doctrine that a contract of
personal service cannot be specifically
enforced, to take the view that in case of
employment under a statutory body or public
authority, where there is ordinarily no
element of personal relationship, the
employee may refuse to accept the
repudiation of the contract of employment
by the statutory body or public authority
and seek reinstatement on the basis that
the repudiation is ineffective and the
contract is continuing."

V.BECAUSE the legal Aid services has been
denied indirectly by all the three levels
of Legal Aid Institutions in India to the
petitioner in the past and Central
Information Commission order has not been
complied by the Legal Aid Institutions. No
action has been taken against the Legal Aid
Institutions in India yet, which has
resulted in miscarriage of justice; which
amounts to infringement of the fundamental
rights of the petitioner under Article 14
W.BECAUSE the petitioner is reeling under
consistent criminal conspiracy through
misusing the Government Machinery by the
respondent no.01 and his associates in
Bihar as well as in New Delhi putting his
life and liberty at stake. Priama facie
evidence collected against these misused
public authorities which have been
recapitulated in the list of dates with
events substantiates their involvement in
and his mother.

X.BECAUSE protection officer under protection
of women against domestic violence Act
2005, Begusarai, Bihar has misused and
abused her vested power by way of filing
frivolous litigation against the petitioner
and his ailing mother after 5 years,
planted criminal conspiracy against the
petitioner and his ailing mother putting
their life and liberty at stake, which has
resulted in irreparable loss to the
petitioner and his mother.
Y.BECAUSE Mr. Gopal Kumar, Advocate, Civil
Court Begusarai, Bihar husband of Ms Veena
Kumari, Protection Officer, under domestic
violence Act, Begusarai, Bihar has managed
to get issued frivolous N.B.W against the
petitioner and his ailing mother after 5
years for his own vested interest, misused
the law of the land, diluted the piousness
of Judicial System and planted criminal
conspiracy against the petitioner and his
ailing mother putting their life and
liberty at stake, which has resulted in
irreparable loss to the petitioner and his
mother.

Z.BECAUSE Mr. Jugal Kishore Sinha, DSP,
Katihar, Bihar has misused and abused his
power to flex muscle power against the
vulnerable petitioner and is ailing mother,
tarnished the social status of the
petitioner and his ailing mother,
frightened the neighbors against
petitioner, returned without recording the
statement of the ailing mother, without
lodging F.I.R. against the respondent,
putting the life and liberty of the
petitioner and his mother at stake, which
has resulted in irreparable loss to the
petitioner and his mother.
AA.BECAUSE Sh. Nawal Kishore Sinha and
Manager State Bank of India, Agricultural
Development Bank, Sonaili Bazar, Sonaili,
Katihar, Bihar has attacked the family
pension account of petitioner’s ailing
mother and exercised vested colorable power
with an attempt to hack the confidential
ATM Pin of the petitioner and his mother,
refused to deposit cash in home branch
without Green Remit Card, on and often
engaged in harassment to the customers,
refused to open ATM machine for withdrawal

as the pensioned mother was unable to climb
upstairs for withdrawal of pension amounts,
putting family pension account at risk,
putting livelihood at stake, which amounts
to infringement of Fundamental Rights of
the petitioner and his mother under Article
21 of the Constitution of India.
BB.BECAUSE service track record of Sh. Nawal
Kishore Sinha is self-explanatory. He has
been demoted from Branch Manager to
Accountant and transferred from SBI
Morshanda to SBI Sonaili. He is
consistently exercising his vested
colorable power against the vulnerable
petitioner and his mother, putting Know
Your Customer (KYC) alert to compel the
pensioned customer to visit Home Branch to
deposit address proof frequently, putting
life and liberty of the petitioner and his
mother at stake, which amounts to
infringement of Fundamental Rights of the
petitioner and his mother under Article 21
CC.BECAUSE Sh Dhirendra Prasad, Advocate,
Civil Court, Katihar, Bihar on behalf of
State Bank of India, ADB Sonaili Bazar,

Sonaili, Katihar has given threat of
instituting criminal case u/s 500 IPC
against petitioner and his mother in
response to the Notice under 80 CPC, gave
threat to shut the mouth against freedom of
speech otherwise pen of the petitioner
would be lost, directing to transfer the
family pension account to New Delhi
defeating the very purpose of core banking
system of SBI, indirectly threatening to
leave the life time acquired property of
petitioner’s mother in Sonaili, Bihar,
ousting the petitioner’s mother from
Sonaili Bihar who happens to be aborigine
of Sonaili, Bihar by way of saying Delhi as
“home branch”, putting life and liberty of
the petitioner and petitioner’s mother at
stake, which amounts to infringement of
Fundamental Rights of the petitioner and
his mother under Article 21 of the
DD. BECAUSE Branch Manager of SBI, Dwarka
Sector-08, New Delhi has admitted the fact
that the ATM machine was wrongly commanded
and he has taken up this matter strongly
with the ATM vendor as it is outsourced by

SBI. There was a serious attempt with
concerted plan have been made to hack the
confidential ATM Pin of petitioner and his
mother through the ATM machine installed at
the SBI Branch of Dwarka Sector-08, New
Delhi, terrorizing the mind of the
petitioner, putting life and liberty of the
petitioner and his ailing mother at stake,
which amounts to infringement of
Fundamental Rights of the petitioner and
his mother under Article 21 of the
EE.BEAUSE neither the Branch Manager nor the
General Manager, Local Head Office, New
Delhi, SBI has answered the crucial point,
the reason of abnormal wrong command fed in
the ATM machine ID No. S1BJ000733445 on
29.10.2015, which falls under the
maintenance jurisdiction of Delhi Cantt
Branch, which has resulted in strengthening
the cynicism against the misuse of public
authorities against the vulnerable
petitioner.
FF.BECAUSE neither the Branch Manager nor the
General Manager, Local Head Office, New

Delhi, SBI has supplied server audit report
and CCTV footage of ATM machine between
10:29 AM to 14:29 PM dated 29.10.2015 to
separate milk from the water, which has
resulted in frightening the petitioner and
his mother psychologically, putting life
and liberty of the petitioner and
petitioner’s mother at stake, which amounts
to infringement of Fundamental Rights of
the petitioner and his mother under Article
21 of the Constitution of India.
GG.BECAUSE Suspected phone calls from Sh Hari
Prasad, Assistant Commissioner, South West,
Delhi, Food Supplies and Consumer affairs
without any complaint, exactly at the time
of LPG Cylinder delivery by the Indane Gas
Agency with abnormal bills only against the
petitioner to verify the identity of the
petitioner to hack the confidential data
from the agency which is Aadhar linked with
Bank account of the petitioner in Delhi, a
serious attempt has been made to attack the
personal bank account of the petitioner, an
attempt to make the life of the petitioner
more miserable, putting life and liberty of
the petitioner at stake, which amounts to

infringement of Fundamental Rights of the
petitioner under Article 21 of the
HH.BECAUSE Sh Ankit Bhatia on behalf of Chief
Area Manager, Indane Area Office, Delhi has
hidden the fact in the garb of recent build
in software and few technical changes;
Indian Oil Corporation is managing
centralized software, any changes in
software is applicable for the entire
Indane customer, not regionally targeting
the specific customer, which has resulted
in strengthening cynicism against the
misuse of public authorities, putting life
and liberty of the petitioner at stake,
Fundamental Rights of the petitioner under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
II.BECAUSE the Civil Court, Patiala House
Court at New Delhi has totally overlooked
the contentions of the petitioner and
subject matter jurisdiction of the court
and retained the suit for more than six
months without its jurisdiction to try this

nature of suit, also retained the
application U/o 7 Rule 10 CPC under
consideration for more than two months,
while passing the order dated 08.01.2016,
Fundamental Rights of the petitioner under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. AVERMENT
i) That the Petitioner does not have any
alternative and efficacious remedy for
enforcement of his fundamental rights.
ii) That the present petitioner has not
filed any other Writ petition in any High
Court or the Supreme Court of India on the
subject matter of the present petition in
appropriate manner, however two Writ
Petitions in letter form have been sent to
the Supreme Court of India against which no
diary numbers and no Writ Petition numbers
have been given to the petitioner.
-:PRAYER:-
In the above premises, it is prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased:

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ order or direction
directing respondent No.01 to 03 for
enforcement of the Fundamental
Rights under Article 14, 15 and 21
of the petitioner staying/setting
aside/quashing/modifying/ the
08.12.2014 to reinstate him with
full back wages.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ order or direction
directing respondent No. 01 and 04
to 11 for enforcement of the
Fundamental Rights under Article 21
to initiate appropriate action and
pass necessary directions to prevent
such incidence of misuse of
Government Machinery against
consistent planting of criminal
conspiracy against the vulnerable
petitioner and his old age ailing
mother as the petitioner has been
left with only one member in his
family now, after an untimely demise

of his father in the similar
fashion.
(iii) Issue a writ of prohibition or
Certiorari or other appropriate
writ order or direction to the
Patiala House Court at New Delhi on
the facts and in the circumstances
of the case for enforcement of the
Fundamental Rights under Article 14
and 21.
(iv) to pass such other orders and
further orders as may be deemed
necessary on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case.
FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER
SHALL AS INDUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.
DRAWN & FILED BY:
PETITIONER IN PERSON
OM PRAKASH
NEW DELHI:
FILED ON : 29.01.2016.
Settled by: Petitioner

IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
& ORS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Om Prakash S/o Late Deep Narayan Poddar, aged 42
years, R/o RZF/893, Netaji Subash Marg, Raj Nagar
Part-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi - 77, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:-
1. That I am the Petitioner in the above matter
and well conversant with the facts of the case
as such competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the contents of the accompanying Civil
Writ Petition [para 1 to 4.], [Page to ] and
Synopsis and List of Dates (Page to ’], and
I, As. and application for seeking permission
to appear and arguing in-person having
understood the contents thereof I say that the
facts state therein are correct which are based

on the official record.
3. That the Civil Writ Petition Paper Book
contains total pages.’
4. That the annexures are true copies of their
respective originals.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the above-named deponent do hereby verify that
the facts stated in the above affidavit are true to
my knowledge and belief. No part of the same is
false and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom.
Verified at New Delhi on this the day of
2016.
DEPONENT
I.A.NO.01 OF 2016
IN

Writ Petition Civil 90 of 2016 dated 29.01.2016

Writ Petition Civil 90 of 2016 dated 29.01.2016

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to Writ Petition Civil 90 of 2016 dated 29.01.2016

Similar to Writ Petition Civil 90 of 2016 dated 29.01.2016 (20)

More from Om Prakash Poddar

More from Om Prakash Poddar (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Writ Petition Civil 90 of 2016 dated 29.01.2016