Shri M K Saini vs Indraprashta Power Generation ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 2764 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             W.P.(C) No. 579/2013 & C.M.No.4680/2014

%                                                         07th April, 2015

SHRI M K SAINI                                      ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr.S.D. Windlesh, Advocate.

                  versus
INDRAPRASHTA POWER GENERATION CO. LTD. (IPGCL)
                                               ..... Respondent
                  Through: Ms.Latika Choudhary, Advocate.
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 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

the petitioner who is an employee of the respondent/Indraprastha Power

Generation Co. Ltd. (IPGCL) seeks the relief of quashing of the transfer order

dated 23.10.2012 by which petitioner's services were transferred to another

company namely Pragati Power Corporation Limited (PPCL). Petitioner in

essence states that since he has been originally appointed and continued as an

employee of the respondent/IPGCL, his services cannot be transferred to a

totally separate entity/company namely PPCL.



W.P.(C) No.579/2013                                                Page 1 of 3
 2.     On behalf of the respondent, it is argued in support of the transfer order

that there has been an in-principle decision of the Board of Directors of the

respondent/IPGCL and the PPCL to merge the two companies, and which

merger is in the process, however, in my opinion, till the merger is complete in

terms of a statutory process or under the Companies Act, 1956, the petitioner

will continue to be an employee only of his employer company viz the

respondent/IPGCL and his services cannot be transferred to a separate

employer/company i.e PPCL.

3.     Of course, after merger petitioner's services can always be taken as the

services to the merged company and thereafter he can be placed on such duties

in accordance with law in the merged company, but today once they are

separate entities and petitioner is an employee of the respondent/IPGCL, his

services cannot be placed with another entity/company/PPCL.

4.     The only other method in which the services of the petitioner could have

been transferred to the other company/employer is, if as per the terms of the

appointment of the petitioner there was a clause that his services could be

deputed by the respondent/IPGCL to any other organization, however, there

are no terms of appointment which are placed before this Court and nor any

service rules of the respondent/IPGCL that the services of an employee of the


W.P.(C) No.579/2013                                                Page 2 of 3
 respondent/IPGCL can be placed at disposal of any other government company

or organization against the will of the petitioner/employee.

5.     Merely because the respondent/IPGCL chooses to maintain now a

common seniority list of its employees as also the employees of PPCL, the

same will not confer any legal entitlement to pass the impugned transfer order

dated 23.10.2012 inasmuch as PPCL as of date is a separate entity than the

respondent/IPGCL.

6.     In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned transfer

order dated 23.10.2012 is quashed. The petitioner will continue to work with

the respondent/IPGCL and at any of the jobs and at any places of work of the

respondent/IPGCL. I clarify that once the merger of IPGCL with PPCL is

complete, then, at that stage, the continuation of the present judgment will

stand effaced and the petitioner's services thereafter will be taken in terms of

the services rules of the new company which will come into existence after

merger of the PPCL with the respondent/IPGCL. No costs




APRIL 07, 2015                                    VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

KA