Delhi Power Compnay Limited vs M.L.Mahajan
2012 Latest Caselaw 2231 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment:30.03.2012

+     CM(M) 1062/2004

      DELHI POWER COMPANY LIMITED       ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr.S.K.Dubey, Advocate.

                    versus

      M.L.MAHAJAN                                  ..... Respondent
                             Through:   Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, Adv.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. Impugned order is dated 15.05.2004; the Court had returned a

finding that the holding company Delhi Power Company Ltd. (DPCL) is

a necessary and proper party and as in terms of the relief claimed in the

plaint, the amount has to be released from the Delhi Vidyut Board

Employees Terminal Benefit Fund, 2002; the contention of the applicant

that Indraprastha Power General Company Ltd. (IPGCL) be impleaded

as a party had been declined; this order is the subject matter of the

present petition.

2. It is an admitted fact that pursuant to a scheme formulated by the

Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 60 read with

Sections 15 & 16 of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000, the

Government of NCT of Delhi had formulated certain rules relating the

transfer and vesting of assets and liabilities proceedings and personnel

of DVB in the successor entities.

3. Facts of this case disclose that the present suit has been filed by

the plaintiff seeking a declaration and mandatory injunction to the effect

that the defendant be directed to give him his increments which have

illegally been withheld by them. Defendant No. 1 in this case was

DESU; the DPCL had thereafter been impleaded as a party. Averments

made in the plaint disclose that the plaintiff was an employee of the

DESU and had retired on 28.02.1990. In the course of service, pursuant

to disciplinary proceedings, his one increment was stopped; this was

vide order dated 28.11.1989; later on his initial increment was also

withheld which was vide order dated 01.03.1989. Suit has been filed for

the aforenoted amounts.

4. The contention of the defendant was that in terms of transfer

scheme vesting the assets and liabilities of the transferor company to the

transferee which in this case was IPGCL, the claim of the petitioner

could only be answered by the transferee company i.e. IPGCL and for

this purpose, an application had been filed by the DPCL seeking

impleadment of IPGCL but it had been dismissed by the impugned

order.

5. Section 6 (2) of the Delhi Electricity Reform (Transfer Scheme)

Rules, 2001 are relevant. Section 6 refers to 'Transfer of Personnel' and

clearly states that personnel have been classified into five groups based

on the principle of 'as is where is' basis, the place of work, suitability,

experience and other relevant consideration shall be transferred to the

transferee as the case may be.

7. In the present petition notice had been issued to the IPGCL who

had filed an affidavit wherein it had been contended that the respondent

had been working in DESU which was located in the portion of the

Rajghat Power House Office Complex of DESU and he was not

working in the Power Generation Activities, the liability cannot thus be

foisted upon the IPGCL. This is the only bone of contention.

8. Apart from the statutory provisions and the rules framed under the

transfer scheme (as noted supra), the Apex Court in the judgment of JT

2010 (4) SC 597 North Delhi Power Limited Vs. Government of

National Capital Territory of Delhi & Others in para 16 had noted as

under:-

"16. There would be the following categories of personnel required to be dealt with:

(a) existing employees of DVB on the date of transfer scheme who were on roll and working;

(b) employees under suspension and facing disciplinary/departmental proceedings at the time of eth transfer scheme.

(c) Employees terminated, dismissed as a consequence of departmental proceedings and who had initiated litigation/cases, proceedings against DVB and such proceeding/litigation was pending at the time of disbanding of DVB."

9. The case of the petitioner falls either in category 'B' or in

category 'C'. The liability of lPGCL who is the transferee of the Delhi

Vidyut Board is clearly made out. He was in fact the necessary party

before the trial Court and not the DPCL.

10. Prayer made in the petition is accordingly allowed. IPGCL is

arrayed as defendant in the pending suit proceedings.

11. With these directions, petition disposed of.

INDERMEET KAUR, J MARCH 30, 2012 A