Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 21st November, 2025
UMESH CHANDRA SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. (Dr.) Vikas Kumar, Adv.
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG
Baid, Mr. Ajitesh Garg, Mr. Amit Gupta and Mr. Naman, Advocates for
R-2/NTPC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV
Per DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL)
ORDER
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 73221/2025
1. The case in hand is a classic example of how a litigant can waste otherwise precious judicial time and misuse the process of law by initiating frivolous litigation and thereby burdening the respondents with unwarranted litigation cost.
2. This Court is constrained to make these observations in the present application, which has been filed under the caption of „modification and recalling‟ of the order dated 10.11.2025. Before troubling the readers with quite an elaborate order; which was not required, but for the unnecessary & frivolous arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant-appellant with vehemence, of course not with vengeance.
3. Before embarking upon a rather long journey, it would be apt to briefly narrate the background.
4. The applicant filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 5405/2025. Learned Single Judge though admitted the writ petition, but refused to grant interim relief prayed by the applicant, which is reproduced hereinfra:- “a. Pass an ad-interim order restraining the Respondents/ NTPC from doing any „performance appraisal‟ of the Petitioner by running afoul of the mandatory Clause 3.1.[1] & the 6th bullet point of the Clause 7 of the extant PMS policy dated 25.10.2019 of NTPC, and b. Pass any order or such further orders/ directions as this Hon‟ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
5. Learned Single Judge per viam his order dated 09.10.2025, passed a detailed order, observing that the prayer for interim relief amounts to final relief. The applicant filed a review petition which too was dismissed by learned Single Judge.
6. The applicant was not satisfied with the above orders of learned Single Judge and preferred a Letters Patent Appeal bearing no. 674/2025.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant at length, this Court had observed that the appeal was only against the refusal to grant interim relief and since appellant‟s writ petition is still pending, no indulgence can be granted. It was also observed that the prayer which the appellant was seeking as interim relief, amounts to granting final relief and the appeal was dismissed on 10.11.2025. The short order passed, reads as under:- “3.The present appeal is directed against the order dated 09.10.2025 whereby the appellant‟s application numbered as CMA No. 24669/2025 was rejected by the learned Single Judge.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the appellant‟s stay application so also the review petition despite the fact that the respondent- Corporation has been continuously carrying out annual performance appraisal in violation of the Performance Management System („PMS‟) Policy dated 25.10.2019.
5. He submitted that on the basis of such appraisal which has been made contrary to the policy of 2019, the petitioner apprehends that extreme disciplinary action of removal/ termination may take place.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and going through the order impugned, we are of the firm view that the interim relief which the appellant had sought by way of the application amounts to final relief and thus cannot be granted and rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. That apart, the prayer which the appellant has been made in the instant appeal that the respondents be restrained from passing any order prejudiced to his rights, based on such appraisal is like a peremptory injunction, which cannot be granted.
7. According to us, the learned single judge has committed no error of law rejecting such an application.
8. The appeal is therefore dismissed.”
8. Feeling aggrieved, rather dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the applicant has chosen to file the subject application being CM APPL. 73221/2025, for recalling/modification of the above-mentioned order.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant for some time, we had observed that the present application is nothing but an attempt to disguise it as an SLP or an appeal before Hon‟ble the Supreme Court and cautioned learned counsel for the applicant that the same amounts to sheer waste of precious judicial time. Learned counsel however, insisted to argue and complained that neither learned Single Judge nor this Court had given him patient audience. Thus, we decided to let him argue to his satisfaction, however, subject to the following terms: i) If we finally reject the application, the applicant shall have to bear the cost of the present application, including the fee which the respondent/corporation is required to pay to the learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) and fee of his instructing counsel; ii) If the arguments exceed 10 minutes, the applicant shall have to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- for consuming every 5 minutes beyond the initial 10 minutes.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant still persisted and sought to argue the matter.
11. We have given full audience to the applicant without interruption except when he repeated the arguments. The arguments of learned counsel and learned ASG were over at 12:40 p.m., having commenced at 10:50 a.m.
12. Learned counsel for the applicant first took the Court through paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the order dated 10.11.2025 and submitted that there is an apparent error on the face of the order, under consideration, inasmuch as the Court has observed that the grant of interim relief would amount to final relief and that since the writ petition is pending before learned Single Judge, no indulgence can be granted in an otherwise discretionary order.
13. Learned counsel for the applicant took the Court through paragraph No. 3.1.1. of the Performance Management System (PMS) Policy 2019 and submitted that as per this clause, the applicant has to be assigned the duties, whereas the respondents have assigned him the duties, which he was not supposed to perform. He argued that the respondents having posted the applicant in Kudgi, Karnataka had asked him to discharge the duties of a safety officer, regardless of the fact that he is an M. Tech (Master of Technology), with an experience of six years in Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in the area of Field Engineering Services of a power plant, before he joined respondent/corporation. Paragraph No. 3.1.1. of the Performance Management System (PMS) Policy, 2019 is reproduced as hereunder: “3.1.[1] Identifying KPAs: o While defining work objectives and measures, it is necessary to ensure that: - Goals/ Targets/ Objectives are SMART (Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic and Time bound). - Results are substantially within the executive‟s control. - Measures relate to results. - Data is available for measurement.. o Agreement on mutually agreeable and achievable performance target is arrived at after sufficient discussion between reporting officer and executive. o It shall be based on draft MOU which shall be cascaded from Top to Bottom and shall be uploaded on Intranet by HR before commencement of planning for the relevant year. o It shall be the responsibility of the HOD (R[2]) to ensure that KPAs identified have sufficient “stretch targets” cascaded down to achieve individual / team excellence.”
14. He submitted that his experience in technical field is not being used and the respondent/corporation is taking his services as a safety officer – an area, in which he doesn‟t have any qualification, experience or expertise. Learned counsel for the applicant invited Court‟s attention towards page NO. 127 of the memo writ petition and highlighted that as per the condition of the advertisement No. 07/04 published in Employment News dated 30.10.2004 - 05.11.2004, he was supposed to have the requisite expertise in the field of the post-advertised and contended that the respondent corporation could not have assigned him any duties which are out of his domain.
15. Learned counsel for the applicant then took the Court to the reply at page 1261; paragraph No. 5, page 211; page 240, bullet point number 7 at page 1169 and also to page 1170 to substantiate his arguments. Learned counsel further argued that the respondent corporation is not providing him annual performance report (“APR”) and are going to proceed against him. He relied upon judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725, placed at page 1243 of the Review Petition.
16. He submitted that if the Court directs him to first wait for ACR and then approach the appellate authorities, the same will be a futile exercise, as he has to beg like a beggar before the appellate authority. Then, learned counsel for the applicant took the Court to page no. 271 and page 1180 and stated that in Final-Normalized Performance Category (Bucket) for the period 01.01.2024 to 31.12.2024, the petitioner has been shown to be at „the bottom‟ without giving any reason. He argued that the action of the respondents in simply informing the result and not the reason is in violation of his fundamental rights. He argued that after 2021, the applicant has been addressing representation after representation, for obtaining copy of the Annual Performance Reports (APRs), but they have not done so.
17. Learned counsel for the applicant highlighted the problems and corresponding aspects of the PMS and submitted that he has to challenge the offending part of the PMS, in order to ensure that the respondents do not act on the basis of offending part of the policy dated 25.10.2019. He also navigated the Court through paragraph No. 12 (page no. 13) of the application and argued that the respondents are not considering petitioner‟s representation in spite of the binding directions given by Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. P.K. Roy & Ors. reported in AIR 1968 SC 850.
18. Having said so, learned counsel for the applicant expressed applicant‟s purported agony by reiterating, rather repeating that he had joined the respondent/corporation after doing M.Tech and securing 6 years‟ experience in power research and after his 20 years of service, the respondents have placed him at the bottom of the entry level, for none of his faults.
19. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the respondents are proceeding vindictively against the applicant.
20. Having made these submissions, at great length, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he had prayed for an interim relief, that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents should not prepare his APRs on the basis of clause 3.1.1. of the PMS policy 2019 and they be further restrained from invoking clause 7.[6] of the policy – a prayer that has been refused by learned Single Judge; Review Petition thereagainst also rejected and then, Division Bench has affirmed such order.
21. Learned ASG pointed out that initially learned Single Judge had dismissed the applicant‟s- writ petitioners, stay petition CM APPL NO. 24669/2025, though writ petition was admitted; there was no error of law let alone apparent error, the petitioner preferred a Review Petition (bearing NO. 538/2025) that was rejected by the learned Single Judge with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on 29.10.2025, where against he filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA 674/2025), as a part of his habit and the said LPA too faced the same fate.
22. Mr. Sharma, learned ASG argued that the LPA 674/2025 has been dismissed by a considered order, but now the applicant not only asked the Court to have a re-look at the order passed in the LPA on 10.11.2025, but has also argued the entire writ petition, which is not even the subject matter of the Letters Patent Appeal, what to talk of the present application for recalling/modification.
23. Inviting Court‟s attention towards page 833 of paragraph 43 of the LPA, being the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 9039/2020, decided on 04.01.2021 learned ASG submitted that the applicant is in habit of wasting judicial time by filing one petition after another, without there being any substance and cause.
24. Learned ASG submitted that there are at least a thousand M.Tech(s) working in the NTPC and if the contention of the applicant is considered that an M.Tech cannot be deployed in the safety wing, the whole administration of the NTPC would crumble. While maintaining that ultimately it is the choice and decision of the employer to assign a particular responsibility to an employee, he submitted that unless the financial status of an employee is changed or some vested right is taken away, he cannot be allowed to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court.
25. At this juncture, learned ASG submitted that after the Court‟s intervention, the applicant was posted as Officer in Field Engineering Services and therefore, whatever little grievance the applicant was having for being posted as Safety Officer too, has ceased to exist.
26. Learned ASG submitted that the contours of an application seeking modification/recalling are entirely different and very limited, even lesser from the review application (which requires an apparent error on the face of record) and thus the application for recalling, for the points argued is wholly misconceived, rather ill-conceived.
27. He submitted that he is at pain to point out that the applicant has taken at least 50 minutes‟ precious minutes of the Court in arguing the subject application, knowing it fully well that the scope of interference is limited – for a glaring error.
28. He submitted that the application in hands has been argued, as if it was a writ petition. It was argued by learned ASG that the applicant‟s main grievance is against transfer and assignment of the duties as he does not intend to work, and in such attempt, he had camouflaged his cause and contended that the action of the Respondent is in the teeth of clause 7 of the SOP of the Policy dated 25.10.2019.
29. Learned ASG submitted that as per para Nos. 8 and 9 of the appointment order No. 07/2005 dated 13.05.2005 and para 11 of judgment passed in LPA 139/2021 dated 06.04.2021, it is a prerogative of the employer (NTPC) to assign appropriate duties to an employee and hence, the applicant has no case worth interference even in the writ petition, let alone, the present application.
30. It was further submitted by the ASG that though, his previous appeal had been dismissed and SLP thereagainst, too had been dismissed, the applicant had chosen not to join his duties. And therefore, as per clause NO. 3.1.[1] of the PMS policy, the Corporation is left with no means to assess his performance and prepare Annual Performance Report (APR), as the Respondents don‟t have any record of work, because the applicant has not performed any work. He argued that the applicant‟s contentions cannot be countenanced that since he is a „scientist‟, he should not be assessed as per clause 3.1.1. He emphasised that as employee‟s performance has to be assessed as per the performance and duties which he has been assigned with by the higher authorities.
31. Learned counsel for the applicant made detailed submissions during rejoinder as well, and in response to the Court‟s query about the scope of application for recalling, he read para no. 9, page no. 11 of his application for modification, more particularly, the extracted part of the judgment of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in Budhia Swain and Ors vs. Gopinath Deb and Ors reported in (1999) 4 SCC 396. Having read said part, he submitted that Hon‟ble the Supreme Court has culled out three grounds on which the power of recalling or modification, being inherent power, vested in Court can be exercised.
32. He submitted that his case squarely falls within the third category - “when the Court itself commits a mistake, which prejudices a party” and submitted that since the Court has not properly appreciated and considered his arguments, it has reached to an erroneous decision. He vehemently argued that it is the duty of the Court to correct its mistake.
33. He submitted that the applicant is not averse to transfer, but he is concerned with the posting or the duties, which have been given to him and raised a grievance again that mention of the post of Safety Officer in the transfer order is arbitrary and illegal, as such post did not exist.
34. Mr. Adarsh Tripathi, associate of Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned ASG intervened at this point in time and clarified that even at the time of transfer, the applicant was not posted as Safety Officer, but was posted as an Additional Officer in the Safety Department and therefore, the applicant‟s contention is absolutely incorrect. He nevertheless clarified that now, he has been posted in field engineering services.
35. Learned ASG placed before the Court, a table indicating the number of cases, which the applicant has filed, which is reproduced hereunder:
1. LPA 380/2016 Order dt. 03.06.2016 (Pg. 489-291) The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court dismissed the said appeal arising out of the order dated 23.05.2016 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner challenging the earlier transfer order of the Petitioner to KBUNL. Thereafter, the said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the said order of the Division Bench was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 05.08.2016.
2. WP 11382/2018 Order dt. 22.10.2018 (Pg. 505-506) The Petitioner again sought direction for being transferred to NETRA (Place of Original Appointment) from KBUNL in view of the job rotation policy dated 30.09.2017. The Writ Petition was again dismissed.
3. WP No. 1289/2019 Order dt. 06.02.2020 (Pg. 571-575) The Petitioner again sought direction to be transferred to NETRA (Place of Original Appointment) on the basis of Job Rotation Policy notified by the Company. This Writ Petition also covered the aspects that Petitioner being a Scientist could not have be transferred, however, this petition was again dismissed with the liberty to make representation to NTPC Ltd.
4. Cont. Case (C) 325/2020 Order dt. 29.09.2020 (Pg. 593-594) This Contempt Petition was filed by the Petitioner assailing the decision taken by the Company dated 15.04.2020, whereby, the representation of the Petitioner was rejected. This contempt petition was dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2020.
5. Writ Petition (C) No. 9039/2020 Order dt. 04.01.2021 (Pg. 599-630) The Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner challenging his transfer from KBUNL to Kudgi seeking quashing of the said transfer order. The Court decided the entire issue with respect to transferability while holding that the post of Petitioner was always transferable. It was observed that it is the discretion of NTPC Ltd. to place the Petitioner at place of choice and assign the nature as duties. It should only be commensurate to the qualifications of the Petitioner. It was observed that (Para. 43 @ Pg. 629): "While this Court has no doubt about the technical qualifications, experience, expertise and calibre and credential of the Petitioner yet it can only be observed that it is for the NTPC to decide how to best utilise the services of the Petitioner. The Courts have been repeatedly observing that in the absence of mala fides or policy violations or a detrimental effect on the career of the employee, the challenge to the Transfer Order must be eschewed and interference should be minimal."
6. Review Petition NO. 18/2021 Order dt. 05.03.2021 (Pg. 631-638) The Review Petition against detailed judgment dated 04.01.2021 was preferred which was again dismissed. Same arguments of transfer being in violation of Rules 88A(1)(ii) Karnataka Factory Rules was rejected. Further, the transfer order alongwith the nature of duties assigned to the Petitioner was again upheld by the Court.
7. LPA No. 139/2021 Order dt. 06.04.2021 (Pg. 639-651) Transfer of the Petitioner was again upheld in the LPA wherein it was not only upheld that the transfer of the Petitioner is valid, but the arguments vis a vis Karnataka Factory Rules was rejected, and it was also rejected that the any particular kind of job/assignment needs to be assigned to the Petitioner.
8. SLP (C) 7278/2021 Order dt. 30.06.2021 (Pg. 654-656) The SLP challenging the judgment dated 06.04.2021 in LPA was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, another Miscellaneous application filed in the disposed SLP was again dismissed vide the order dated 13.04.2022 wherein similar reliefs were sought including assignment of particular nature of job and back wages. The subsequent Miscellaneous Application filed by the Petitioner seeking clarification/modification of the order was also dismissed on 13.04.2022.
9. W.P.(C) 6918/2022 Order dated This Hon'ble Court again observed that it is the prerogative of the Employer to assign a 18.10.2022 (Pg. 838-843) suitable job profile and posting to an employee. Further, the challenge has been earlier rejected to such transfers. (Para. 4)
10. W.P.(C) 14754/2023 22.11.2023 (Pg. 1037-1055) Challenged order dated 08.02.2023 on same premise of being Scientist so cannot be transferred and nature of duties cannot be changes. Again challenged based on the same job rotation policy argument. Employee has no vested right to remain at the same place as stated in Para. 33 (Pg. 1051). Terms of transfer were known the Petitioner from the beginning @ Para. 40- 41 (Pg. 1053-1054).
11. Review Petition 172/2024 24.04.2024 (Pg. 1106-1124) The order dated 22.11.2023 dismissing the challenge to transfer order and assign of duties was assailed in review, which again was dismissed. It is clear in para 25 that the issues of transferability has attained finality in earlier rounds (Pg. 1120).
12. LPA 411/2024 Order dt. 21.05.2024 (1192) LPA filed against the order dated 22.11.2023 and 24.04.2024 was withdrawn. IA for recall was dismissed as the appeal was withdrawn in the presence of the Petitioner himself.
13. SLP (C) 22066/2024 Order dt. 27.09.2024 Pg. 1256 The SLP filed by the Petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed.
14. W.P.(C) No. 5405 of Order dt. 09.10.2025 The interim relief sought by the Petitioner to conduct the Performance Appraisal only as per the duties ought to have been assigned to the Petitioner was rejected by the Hon'ble Court with a cost of Rs. 10,000.
15. R.P. 538/2025 29.10.2025 Review Petitioner preferred by the Petitioner against the order dated 09.10.2025 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court.
16. LPA 674/2025 10.11.2025 The Division Bench dismissed the LPA filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 09.10.2025 and 29.10.2025 of the Ld. Single Judge was dismissed. (1192)
17. C.M. App. 73221/2025 in LPA 674/2025 Listed on 21.11.2025. An application for recall of the order dated 10.11.2025 has been filed by the Appellant
36. In response to number of cases, which the learned ASG has pointed out, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in his rejoinder (RJ-1) he has given a detailed explanation for which the applicant had to file the petitions, review applications, Letters Patent Appeal and the SLP before Hon‟ble the Supreme Court.
37. Heard learned counsel for the applicant in great deal (much more than what was required) and learned ASG, who too had to make submissions in some detail to counter the lengthy arguments of learned counsel for the applicant, which had consumed about an hour.
38. Very first question, which comes up for our consideration is, what is the scope of interference in an application seeking recalling or modification of the order. Even going by the judgment, which learned counsel for the applicant has cited, “when the Court itself commits a mistake, which prejudices a party”.
39. While dealing with this aspect, we have to bear in mind that the order under consideration dated 10.11.2025 was passed in a Letters Patent Appeal, which the applicant had filed against rejection of his review petition. By way of said revision petition, the applicant had asked for review of an order denying grant of stay. In his stay petition, the applicant had prayed that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents be directed not to consider his APR on the basis of clause 3.1.[1] of the PMS policy.
40. While hearing the intra-court appeal, this Court was clearly of the opinion that such interim relief cannot be granted and the applicant will have his rights to challenge the APR, if he is in any way, aggrieved by such action. The Court has also noticed all the contentions of the applicant, which were relevant for the purposes of considering the intra-court appeal, yet the applicant has prayed that said order be modified/recalled.
41. While maintaining that there is no merit and substance in the present application, we are of the view that no prejudice has been caused to the applicant, consequent to the dismissal of his Letters Patent Appeal, because the applicant‟s writ petition is still pending consideration before the learned Single Judge.
42. Needless to observe that interim relief is a discretionary relief and when it comes to Letters Patent Appeal, it cannot be taken to be a Regular Appeal. The Division Bench should be loath in entertaining the matters, unless there is an apparent error in the order of the learned Single Judge.
43. Having allowed the learned counsel for the applicant to make submissions for about an hour, we are of the view that whatever has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant were uncalled for and was a misuse of liberty, which was granted to the applicant, of course because of his stubbornness. All submissions were, as if, he is arguing the pending writ petition, which is pending before the learned Single Judge.
44. We are constrained to observe that in an application under the caption „modification/recalling the order‟, the applicant has consumed precious judicial time of this Court, when other bonafide litigants are waiting for adjudication of their rights and grievances.
45. Though, we did not interject the applicant nor did we ask him to stop the arguments, despite him being cautioned that his application will be dismissed with costs, but his persistence in the submissions, has been an example of an attempt to waste judicial time and misuse of the leverage, which was granted to him.
46. A simple look at the submissions which this Court has noticed, makes it abundantly clear that they all fall in the realm of decision of the writ petition and does not even pertain to Letters Patent Appeal, what to talk of the application for modification/ recalling of the order.
47. A look at the table given in para no. 31, makes it abundantly clear that the applicant is not simply a habitual, but a compulsive litigant; who remains discontented not only with his Department but also with the Courts and its orders alike.
48. Without making further comments, we hereby dismiss the application with costs, calculated as under.
(i) The amount which the Respondent-Corporation has to pay to the learned ASG.
(ii) Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- for each 05 minutes, for considering the matter. 98 minutes, excluding the initial 10 minutes, which the Court took to decide the application – 1,96,000/-, rounded off to Rs. 2,00,000/-).
49. So far as the Clause (i) of the cost is concerned, the same shall be paid to the Respondent-Corporation and the remaining cost, as indicated in clause (ii), shall be deposited by the applicant before the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within a period of six weeks from today.
50. It has been held by Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that Courts should constrict such frivolous litigations, so that judicial time can be utilized for better causes and deserving cases. Gainful reference can be made to the recent judgment of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in Pandurang Vithal Kevne v. BSNL, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 410, relevant para No. 22 of which is reproduced hereinfra: “22. Considering that precious time of this Court and the High Court was wasted by the petitioner, in our opinion the petitioner deserves to be burdened with heavy cost, to give clear message to the unscrupulous litigants like the petitioner for not daring to play with the Judicial System. Such type of litigants are not only polluting the stream of justice but putting hurdles in its dispensation to others. The precious judicial time which the petitioner has wasted, could very well be used for taking up the cases of other litigants who are waiting for justice. In fact these types of litigants are choking the system of the court, which is resulting in delays in decision of other cases. It is also the duty of the Courts at different levels to curb such type of litigation so that more time is available for dealing with genuine litigation.”
51. Hence, it is ordered that in case the cost aforesaid is not paid/deposited within six weeks, neither the applicant‟s writ petition shall be heard nor any of his petitions or cases, shall be listed by the Registry for consideration, before any of the Bench of this Court. He shall, of course, be free to challenge this order before Hon‟ble the Supreme Court.
DINESH MEHTA, J VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J NOVEMBER 21, 2025