Delhi High Court
Rai Singh Dahiya vs N.D.P.L. & Anr. on 8 March, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 11411/2009
% 8th March, 2013
RAI SINGH DAHIYA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, Adv.
versus
N.D.P.L. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Arjun Pant, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The only limited issue in this writ petition is as to who is liable to
make payment of the dues of the petitioner, who was an erstwhile employee of
DVB, and whose services have thereafter been transferred to the
DISCOM/respondent no.1/North Delhi Power Ltd.
2. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1 argues that the liability
towards pension and terminal benefits etc would be not of the
W.P.(C) 11411/2009 Page 1 of 4
DISCOM/respondent no.1, but of the relevant Pension Trust i.e respondent no.3.
This issue has already been considered by me against the respondent No.1 herein
in a batch of cases with lead case titled as Iqbal Chand Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
& Ors. in W.P.(C) No.13834/2009 decided on 31.1.2013. Paras 5,6 and 11 of the
said judgment read as under:-
5. On behalf of the DISCOMS and the transferee companies, two
main arguments were urged for dismissal of the writ petitions as under:-
(i) The petitioners have approached this Court with
considerable delay and laches inasmuch as the benefits of the circulars dated
23.7.1997 and 21.12.1999 are being claimed in the year 2009 onwards.
(ii) The second argument is that the liability for all monetary
benefits payable to the employees of erstwhile DVB in the nature of gratuity
and terminable benefits is not the liability of the DISCOMS or the transferee
companies but of the concerned Pension Fund of 2002.
6. So far as the second argument that the liability is not of the
DISCOMS or the transferee companies, and in fact of the relevant Pension
Fund of 2002, I need not adjudicate upon this issue in the present petitions,
inasmuch as, the Supreme Court in the judgment of North Delhi Power
Limited (supra) has specifically in paras 60 and 61 held that the liability will
be of the DISCOMS, and therefore, the liability in the present writ petitions
have to be fastened on the DISCOMS or the transferee companies. However, I
may add that if the DISCOMS feel that by virtue of the transfer scheme they
are entitled to seek reimbursement of its claim from the relevant Pension Fund
of 2002, then, if permissible in law, the DISCOMS and the relevant transferee
company can take appropriate action for recovery of those amounts from the
concerned Pension Fund towards seeking that such trust fund may directly
make payment to the petitioners. This will however strictly be between the
DISCOMS and the transferee companies on the one hand and the concerned
Pension Fund of 2002 on the other, however, for that reason, there cannot be
W.P.(C) 11411/2009 Page 2 of 4
delay in clearing of any liability to the petitioners in this case. Accordingly, I
reject the argument raised by the DISCOMS and the transferee companies with
the aforesaid observations that against the DISCOMs and the transferee
companies the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs claimed in these writ
petitions of terminal benefits pursuant to the circulars dated 23.7.1997 and
21.12.1999. For the sake of completion of narration I must refer to the fact that
the counsel for the Pension Fund has referred before me a judgment of a
learned Single Judge of this court in the case titled as Babu Ram Jain Vs.
BSES Yamuna Power Ltd in W.P.(C) 1597/1998 decided on 4.8.2011 and
first para of this judgment directs deletion of Delhi Vidyut Board Employees
Provident Terminal Fund 2002 and substitutes in its place BSES Yamuna
Power Ltd. (BYPL) ie holding the liabilities for the terminal benefits etc to be
of the DISCOMS/transferee companies and not of the Pension Fund. While
disposing of the W.P.(C) 1597/1998, the learned Single Judge also in para 11
specifically directs the DISCOMS ie M/sBYPL to pay to the petitioners all
consequential benefits by way of arrears of salary and other retiral benefits.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petitions are
allowed. Petitioners are directed to be paid the entire consequential monetary
benefits on they being given the benefits of the circulars dated 23.7.1997 and
21.12.1999. The petitioners will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 6%
per annum simple till the payment of the monetary benefits payable to them
from the dates of filing of these petitions provided that such monetary benefits
are paid on or before a period of three months from today. In case, there is
delay in payment of the monetary benefits to the petitioners beyond three
months, then the petitioners will be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per
annum simple for the period after three months.
It will be open to the DISCOMS and the transferee companies to
approach the relevant Pension Fund so that the DISCOMS and the transferee
companies know the dues which would be payable to the petitioners, however
at the same time making it clear that this would not affect the directions with
respect to the time of payment and the interest as stated above.
(Underlining added).
W.P.(C) 11411/2009 Page 3 of 4
3. Adopting the aforesaid reasoning as given in Iqbal Chand's (supra)
case, it is held that the liability with respect to payment of dues of the petitioner as
examined in the writ petitions, in the present case will be of the respondent no.1
and which liability be cleared within a period of three months from today.
Petitioner will be entitled to interest at 6% per annum simple during the pendency
of the writ petition and till the monetary benefits as claimed in the writ petition are
paid within a period of three months. If the payment is not made within three
months, thereafter the petitioner will be entitled to interest at 9% per annum.
4. The observations which are made in second para of para 11 of the
judgment in Iqbal Chand's case will also apply so far as the respondent no.1 in the
present case is concerned.
5. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
MARCH 08, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
