Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 26.09.2025
BALDEV SINGH & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal & Ms. Kritika Matta, Advs.
Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC
JUDGMENT
1. The Petition was disposed of by an order of this Court dated 16.10.2020. Subsequently, an Application for revival of the Writ Petition was filed. The Application has been pending before this Court for the last five years.
2. Accordingly, and for the reasons as stated in the Application, this Court deems it apposite to revive the Writ Petition.
3. The Application stands disposed of.
4. The grievance of the Petitioner as articulated in the present Petition was that the recovery certificate dated 19.01.2016 [hereinafter referred to as the “Recovery Certificate”] issued by the Regional Labour Commissioner ought to be enforced and the amounts be released to the Petitioners.
5. This Court, after hearing the parties, on 16.10.2020, passed directions stating that since the prayers in the Petition are only for enforcement of the Recovery Certificate and implementation of the Award dated 22.02.2006, the Respondent No.1 shall take immediate steps to implement the Recovery Certificate and recover the amount from Respondent No.3/CPWD within two weeks and upon recovery being made, the payment shall be made to the Petitioners within a further period of one week. The Court also granted the Petitioners the liberty to approach this Court if payments are not made within the timeline stipulated. The relevant extract of the order dated 16.10.2020 is set out below:
6. The Petitioners were, however, constrained to file CM APPL. 3929/2022 on 23.11.2021 for revival of the Petition since the payments were not made.
7. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 has submitted that the payments have been made, however, there were certain deductions that were required to be made, which were reduced from the payments to be made to the Petitioners. In this behalf, the Respondent No.3 has sought to rely upon the banking instrument dated 25.01.2022 in the sum of Rs.3,17,463/- issued in favour of Petitioner No.1 and banking instrument dated 25.01.2022 in the sum of Rs.3,29,520/- issued in favour of Petitioner No. 2.
8. This Court had by an order dated 07.08.2025, after briefly hearing the parties, had directed as follows: 1.[1] Thereafter, the Petition was revived basis an Application being CM APPL. 3929/2022 filed by the Petitioners and directions were also passed by an order dated 11.02.2022 by the Court in this behalf. It is apposite to set out the relevant extract of the order dated 11.02.2022 below:
2. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the directions of 16.10.2020 were not complied with. In pursuance thereof, an Affidavit was filed.
3. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 submits that in compliance with the order passed by the Court form time-to-time, the Respondent No. 3 has already paid the amount of Rs.3,17,463/- in favour of Petitioner No.1 and Rs.3,29,523/- in favour of Petitioner No.2. 3.[1] Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 further submits that the payments have been made in view of the prevailing policy and as per the Office Memorandum dated 21.10.1990. Reliance is placed on Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Affidavit dated 12.07.2023 which is filed by the Respondent/Union of India which are set out below:
9. Subsequently, a detailed Affidavit has been filed by the Respondent No.3 setting out a tabular chart of the deductions made. The Affidavit however does not contain any specific details as to why these deductions have been made. In fact, the Affidavit says that if there is any error in calculation, it should be pointed out by the Petitioner. It is apposite to extract paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Affidavit, which read as follows:
also submitted that if the petitioners are of the view that there is any error in the calculation, they may kindly be directed to specifically point out such error before this Hon'ble Court.” [Emphasis supplied]
10. Today, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3, on instructions, submits that there has been no deduction made, however, there is an error in the Recovery Certificate. 10.[1] This submission is controverted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the fact that the Recovery Certificate has not been challenged by the Respondent No.3 till today.
11. Concededly, this Petition was originally disposed of by this Court directing that the payment be made in terms of the Recovery Certificate on 16.10.2020. The complete payments as set out in terms of the Recovery Certificate have not yet been made by the Respondents. It is also undisputed that there has been no challenge made to the Recovery Certificate that was the subject matter of this Petition.
12. Accordingly, this Court deems it apposite to direct the Respondent No.3 to make good the balance amounts payable in terms of the Recovery Certificate to both the Petitioners/their legal representatives, within three weeks, failing which the Respondent No.3 shall also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the balance amounts due, as set out in the Recovery Certificate. 12.[1] In addition, the Respondents shall also pay costs in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each to the Petitioners/their legal representatives.
13. The Petition is disposed of in the aforegoing terms. All pending Applications stand closed.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2025/ ha/r