Shri Roop Chand v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. and Anr.

1. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner who was the employee of erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board and whose successor-in-interest is now respondent No.1/BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Petitioner was working as a Senior Lineman in the Delhi Vidyut Board. While attending to no current complaint in July, 1995, petitioner suffered an injury to his back and spinal chord and was disabled to the extent of 75%.

2. In the writ petition, the petitioner prays for:-

(i) Appointment of petitioner’s son on compassionate ground.

(ii) Payment of disability pension.

(iii) Payment of compensation of Rs.10 lacs.

(iv) Payment of Rs.1.20 lacs towards New Group Insurance Scheme and

3. Respondent No.1 has filed its counter affidavit wherein in para 2 it is stated as under:- “2. During his service in the erstwhile DVB prior to his voluntary retirement on medical ground w.e.f. 01.03.1999 he was paid workmen compensation amounting to Rs.58,676.25 p as per his disability through workmen compensation commissioner vide cheque No.03333381 dated 31.07.1997. Further after his retirement on medical ground he was also paid invalid pension and amount of Group Insurance Scheme as per applicable rules. His son Sh. Gyan Chand was also offered appointment on daily wages by the then Management of DVB vide letter No.E/AO (P- VI)/98-99/25 dated 15th April, 1999. A copy of the said letter is annexed hereto as Annexure R-1.”

4. In my opinion, the decision of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner would operate as res judicata for further claims against the employer on account of injury suffered during the course of employment. So far as the issue of disability is concerned, respondent No.1 states that the petitioner was paid invalid pension as also amount of Group Insurance Scheme applicable as per rules. Petitioner’s son was also given employment on daily wages vide letter dated 15.4.1999 of DVB.

5. In view of the above, the reliefs which are claimed by the petitioner stand already granted. In case, the petitioner seeks to sue the erstwhile employer and whose successor-in-interest is now the respondent No.1, under law of torts then a suit will have to be filed inasmuch as there would be disputed questions of facts which require trial as also evidence to be led with respect to the damages to be awarded.

6. In view of the above, writ petition is disposed of in view of averments made in the preliminary submissions para 2 of the counter affidavit of respondent No.1 and giving the petitioner liberty to file civil suit in a Court of law with respect to damages which the petitioner claims he has suffered. This Court makes no observation one way or the other on such claims of the petitioner, and which will be examined by the civil Court in accordance with law. MAY 08, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne