Writ Jurisdiction To Be Exercised In Circumspection, Can't Displace Authority's Order By Merely Taking Another Opinion On Same Material: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has observed that the order passed by an authority cannot be displaced merely because High Court can take another opinion on the same material in writ jurisdiction.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma further added that although the writ jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court is wide, but the same has to be exercised in circumspection.

"This Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence," the Court said.

The Court was dealing with a petition challenging the impugned order dated 19th May, 2022, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of four months' salary w.e.f. 19th April, 2018 to 12th August, 2018 was rejected.

It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the authority had rejected the claim despite there being sufficient material on record.

It was also submitted that the respondent management did not even lead any evidence and therefore the case of the petitioner was uncontroverted.

Perusing the impugned order, the Court opined that the authority in the impugned order noted that the evidence produced by the petitioner claimant did not prove his case.

"The entire evidence produced by the petitioner-claimant had been appreciated and it was inter alia held that the same were not sufficient to prove the claim of the claimant against the respondent," the Court said.

It added "It has been noted that the respondent is an educated person and was appointed at a salary of Rs.50,000/- p.m. and therefore he was expected to file some material evidence i.e. appointment letter, salary slip etc. on the record to prove the relationship of employee and employer but no such document/evidence has been placed on record."

Further noting that the petitioner was an educated person and a graduate from Delhi University, the Court said that to say that he was not given any documents when he joined the services did not hold any ground. 

"The petitioner had to be aware of his rights and should have insisted for the documents. This is not the case where the petitioner is an illiterate person or had been working as a labourer. The petitioner herein, is a professional and an expert in accountancy. It is also cardinal principle that one who makes the claim is bound to prove the same. The claim could not have been granted on the bald assertion," the Court said.

Upholding the impugned order, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: RAJENDER PRASAD PANT v. M/S EXCHANGE AGENCIES & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 723

Click Here To Read Order