Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Kuldeep Kumar Written Statement
Kuldeep Kumar Written Statement
Kuldeep Kumar Written Statement
ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE – 01, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 216 OF 2021
Vs.
INDEX
Vs.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
A. That the present suit is barred under The Limitation Act, 1963. Same is
(i) That the Plaintiff’s has initiated the instant suit for recovery of
Defendant. The Plaintiff has pleaded that such excess payments are
reference).
to 13.05.2016 itself (i.e. when the Defendant worked with the Plaintiff
and when the purported excess payments were made by the Plaintiff to
the instant suit expired on 13.05.2019 (i.e. three years from 13.05.2016
till when the Defendant worked with the Plaintiff and consequently last
whereas the instant suit has been initiated in April, 2021 (i.e.
approximately after 2 years from the expiry of limitation period to initiate
B. That the instant suit is also barred in terms of Hon’ble Apex Court’s
Judgment titled as “State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Malik (White
stated: -
(i) That the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment of “State of Punjab &
employees who are due to retire within one (1) year from the order
of recovery is impermissible.
Thus, the present suit for recovery initiated in April, 2021 (i.e. after
It is stated that the contents of paragraph A and the present paragraph are
PARAWISE REPLY
1. That the contents of the corresponding paragraph 1 are matters of record.
Limitation Act, 1963. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the contents
the Plaintiff to the Defendant herein. In this regard, it is stated that the
Defendant and not an allowance or perk. The monies paid by the Plaintiff
allowance or perks. The Defendant had already incurred the expenses and
the Plaintiff had merely reimbursed the Defendant vis-à-vis such
not made any income from the monies paid by the Plaintiff (recovery of
which is being sought in the instant suit) and the recovery of such monies
would lead to extreme hardship to the Defendant and thus barred on this
count also under the Hon’ble Apex Court’s Judgment cited hereinabove
[i.e. State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Malik (White Washer)].
said contents make it evident that the present suit is not maintainable
same being time barred and contrary to the mandate of Hon’ble Apex
Court as contained in the judgment of “State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq
Plaintiff that the Defendant worked with Plaintiff only till 13.05.2016 so
limitation period to initiate the instant suit (i.e. 3 years) has expired on
13.05.2019 thereby making the present suit (initiated in April, 2021)
denied that any excess payment has been made by the Plaintiff to the
Plaintiff itself has stated in its plaint that the present proceedings have
present suit.
(when the purported excess payments were made by the Plaintiff while
the Defendant worked with the Plaintiff) since the DPE Guidelines
Industry was aware that excess payments (if any) made to the employees
Accordingly, the said Ministry could not have directed the Plaintiff to
belated letter (i.e. the said Ministry’s letter dated 09.05.2017). The said
Ministry’s letter dated 09.05.2017 cannot have any effect on the reliefs
Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Malik (White Washer” no proceeding for
who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery. Thus, once
the said ministry in its own office memorandum has acknowledged that
within one year of the order of recovery, cannot be initiated (as is the case
with the Defendant herein), thus the said ministry’s letter dated
basic pay towards allowances and perks. Accordingly, it is stated that the
Plaintiff has expressly admitted that its right to sue had accrued and the
06.03.2018 is without any effect vis-a-vis the reliefs sought in the present
13.05.2016 (i.e. when the Defendant lastly worked with the Plaintiff) as
the Plaintiff’s right to sue had accrued simultaneously with the purported
clear that the instant suit is not maintainable in terms of Hon’ble Apex
Court’s judgment passed in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Malik
(White Washer) since the said judgment prohibits the Plaintiff from
of monies as claimed in the present suit) has been issued much later than
the retirement date of the Defendant which as per the Plaintiff’s own
matters of record and not denied. In reply to the rest of the contents of the
irrelevant for the purposes of the present suit moreso when the said
ministry is not even a party in the present suit. Even otherwise, the
decision dated 19.03.2020 of the said ministry does not have any effect
12. That the contents of the corresponding paragraph 12 are incorrect and
denied. It is denied that the Plaintiff could have issued any demand notice
itself is barred in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court titled
as State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Malik (White Washer). It is stated
that the Defendant is under no liability to refund the purported excess
payment as demanded by the Plaintiff vide its notice dated 01.04.2020 let
alone within 15 (fifteen) days. It is further stated that the Defendant has
13. That the contents of corresponding paragraph 13 are incorrect and denied.
wrongful loss to the Plaintiff. It is denied that any loss has been caused to
without any specifics and has to be ignored for the purposes of the
present suit.
14. That the contents of corresponding paragraph 14 are incorrect and denied.
It is denied that the Defendant failed in its duties. There is not a single
the Plaintiff let alone the purported excess amount of Rs. 5,11,669/- with
in its demand notices the Plaintiff has referred to the purported excess
evidences that the Plaintiff is not only seeking recovery of monies that are
not only due and payable to it but also has been seeking to wrongfully
15. That the contents of corresponding paragraph 15 are incorrect and denied.
It is denied that any cause of action arose in favour of the Plaintiff by way
is denied that any cause of action arose in favour of the Plaintiff by way
of its show cause notice dated 11.07.2017. It is further denied that cause
It is denied that the Plaintiff has continuing cause of action against the
Defendant. It is further denied that any sum is due and payable to the
that the Plaintiff has deliberately not mentioned the DPE Guidelines
so as to camouflage the fact that the Plaintiff’s suit is time-barred and not
maintainable.
16-17. The contents of the corresponding paragraphs 16 and 17 are
18. The contents of the corresponding paragraph 18 are incorrect and denied.
denied that the Plaintiff has any cause of action in its favour to file the
present suit.
PRAYERS
(A) Dismiss the present Suit qua every relief that have been
(B) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case
DEFENDANT
Through
Sarad Kumar Sunny & Rohan Dua,
(Advocates for Defendant),
S-266, Greater Kailash 1,
New Delhi – 110048,
Place: New Delhi. Mobile No. –
9958178853.
Date: 06.10.2022. E-Mail ID –
saradksunny@gmail.com
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this ____ day of October, 2022 that the contents of
knowledge and belief and nothing material nor relevant has been concealed
there from and those of paragraph ___ and ___ to ___ are based on legal
DEFENDANT