Full Text
4th March, 2013 SH. R.K. KOHLI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jayant Nath, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhim Sen, Advocate.
Through: Mr. L.K. Garg, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Anupam Verma, Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate for
TPDDC, Advocate.
Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate for Pension Trust.
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. In a batch of petitions with lead case being W.P.(C) No.13834/2009 titled as Iqbal Chand Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. decided on 31.1.2013, I have decided an issue which is also an issue in the present case viz. which is the entity liable to pay the service dues of erstwhile employees of DVB? 2013:DHC:1173
2. I have in the judgment dated 31.1.2013 following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of North Delhi Power Limited Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors. (2010) 6 SCC 278 held that it is the DISCOM which takes over the services of erstwhile employees of DVB which will be liable. In the present case, the DISCOM is M/s. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited and therefore the liability in the present case will fall upon the said DISCOM.
3. Counsel for the DISCOM argued two points before me:
(i) Petitioner is guilty of delay and laches and hence not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition.
(ii) Petitioner was visited with a penalty order dated 9.7.1997 whereby a penalty of reduction of one step in his pay scale for a period of one year without cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs in the writ petition.
4. So far as the first aspect of delay and laches is concerned, I have dealt with this aspect in paras 7 to 10 in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.13834/2009 dated 31.1.2013 and adopting which reasoning this ground is rejected.
5. So far as the second aspect of penalty order passed against the petitioner is concerned, I fail to understand that how it will in any manner have impact of declining the reliefs granted in the writ petition because the DISCOM is fully entitled to implement the penalty order, however, that penalty order will be implemented by simultaneously also implementing the circular dated 23.7.1997.
6. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be paid the entire consequential monetary benefits to be given by implementing the circular dated 23.7.1997. Petitioner will also be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum simple during the pendency of this petition and till the time the monetary benefits are paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. In case, the monetary benefits are not paid within three months, petitioner will be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum simple on the arrears paid after the period of three months. I may clarify that observations made in para 11 of the judgment dated 31.1.2013 in W.P.(C) No.13834/2009 will also, if permissible in law, apply to the DISCOM in the present case.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J MARCH 04, 2013 Ne