Sh. R.K. Kohli vs The Government Of Nct Of Delhi And ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 1069 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         WP(C) No. 1230/2010

%                                                        4th March, 2013

SH. R.K. KOHLI                                       ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Jayant Nath, Senior Advocate
                                         with Mr. Bhim Sen, Advocate.

                          versus

THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents

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.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

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?

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