Tej Pal Singh vs Bses Rajdhani Power Limited
2013 Latest Caselaw 4919 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 4194/1997
%                                                  25th October, 2013

TEJ PAL SINGH                                            ......Petitioner
                          Through:       None.


                          VERSUS

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED                 ...... Respondent
                 Through:  Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
                           Anupam Varma and Mr. Nikhil
                           Sharma, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           By this writ petition, petitioner who was working as a

Chowkidar with the erstwhile Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU),

and whose successor-in-interest is the present respondent-M/s BSES

Rajdhani Power Limited, claims that he should be retired not at the age of 58

years but at the age of 60 years. Petitioner claims that he was born on

25.12.1938 and therefore he would stand retired on 25.12.1998 and not on

31.12.1996 when he was retired.



WPC 4194/1997                                                               Page 1 of 4
 2.           Learned senior counsel for the respondent has drawn my

attention to the circular dated 2.6.1981 issued by the Delhi Electric Supply

Undertaking, as per which, the security staff will retire at the age of 58 years

and other Class-IV employees will retire at the age of 60 years. This circular

is an office order and which reads as under:-


                    'DELHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING'
             No: F.5/5/80-O&M                   Dated 2nd June, 1981
                                 OFFICE ORDER
                   Consequent upon adoption of Fundamental Rules &
             Supplementary Rules in Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking
             with effect from 21.2.1980, the retirement age of the employees
             in Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking is regulated by the
             provisions contained in F.R.56 and the orders issued
             thereunder. In this regard the following clarifications are
             issued:-
                    1.    Office Order No. F.5/5/80-O&M/430 dated 10th
             September, 1980 clarified that the categories of employees
             mentioned therein were not covered by the definition of
             'workman' given in F.R.56(b). This does not imply that rest of
             the categories of employees are 'workmen'.
                   2.     The retirement age of Class IV employees would
             be 60 years as provided in F.R.56(b) except in regard to Class
             IV Security Staff, who will retire at 58 years.
                   3.     The 123 categories of staff (not included in Class
             IV categories of employees) as mentioned in the Annexure to
             this Office order will be treated as 'Workman' for the purpose
             of F.R.56(b) and would retire at the age of 60 years.
                   4.    Any employee belonging to Class IV category or
             covered by the categories of 'workman' mentioned in para 3
WPC 4194/1997                                                                Page 2 of 4
               above, who has been retired from the services of the
              Undertaking on attaining the age of 58 years on or after
              21.2.1980 shall be taken back on duty immediately. The
              intervening period after the date of retirement in such cases
              would be treated as the period spent on duty for all purpose.
                     This issues with the approval of the General Manager
              (E).
              Encl: Annexure                          (A.J.S.SAHNEY)
                            ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (GENERAL)"


3.            The aforesaid office order dated 2.6.1981 has been referred to

in para 5 of the preliminary objections of the counter-affidavit of the

respondent and in the rejoinder-affidavit no satisfactory reply has been

given, and which obviously could not have been given because it is this

circular dated 2.6.1981 which will hold the field as per which security staff

such as the petitioner would retire at the age of 58 years and not 60 years. I

may note that at the relevant point when the petitioner retired, Delhi Electric

Supply Undertaking was existing and being a government organization it

would have uniformly applied the rule of retirement at the age of 58 years to

all the security staff.


4.            In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the

claim of the petitioner is not justified that the petitioner had to retire at the

age of 60 years and not 58 years and which is clear in view of the circular of
WPC 4194/1997                                                                 Page 3 of 4
 the DESU dated 2.06.1981 that security staff will retire at the age of 58

years unlike other Class-IV employees who are to retire at the age of 60

years.

5.           There is therefore no merit in the petition, which is accordingly

dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




OCTOBER 25, 2013                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib