Shri S.K.Sood vs M/S Indraprastha Power ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 1998 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 2893/1999
%                                                    9th March, 2015

SHRI S.K.SOOD                                              ..... Petitioner

                          Through:       Mr. Rajiv Bakshi, Adv. with
                                         petitioner in person.


                          versus

M/S INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION CO. LTD.

                                                     ..... Respondent

                          Through:       None.

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 Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, petitioner, an employee of the respondent Delhi

Vidyut Board (DVB) (now M/s Indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd.),

seeks the benefit of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer-AE

(Electronics) w.e.f 31.10.1994. Petitioner claims promotion on the ground

that the feeder cadre for the post of AE (Electronics) is Foreman

(Electronics) and petitioner's post of Supervisor (Electronics) was

WP(C) 2893/1999                                                               Page 1 of 4
 designated as the post of Foreman (Electronics) vide orders dated

31.10.1994 and 16.11.1994 filed as Annexures P-4 and P-5 to the writ

petition.

2.           The defence of the respondent is simple and which is that the

orders which the petitioner relies upon as Annexures P-4 and P-5 were only

internal office orders and these orders never got concurrence of the requisite

authorities by notification of these orders in the Official Gazette.      The

relevant averments made by the respondent in the counter-affidavit read as

under:-


      "Grounds (b) to (j) are wrong and denied. This has already been
      clarified in the earlier paragraphs as mentioned earlier that the
      rules and orders have not been gazetted and the UPSC concurrence
      has also not been received as such the allegation of the petitioner
      is wrong. The petitioner has no claim to the post of A.E./AXEN
      (M/E) till the amendments by the Board are approved by the
      UPSC and notified in the official gazette by the Govt. of N.C.T. of
      Delhi.
                   xxxxxxxxxx
                   xxxxxxxxxx
      4.     That as provided under Section 79(c) read with (k) of the
      Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the Board may, by notification in
      the official Gazette, make regulations in respect of .........duties
      of officers and other employees of the Board and their salaries,
      allowances and other conditions of service......any other mater
      arisen out of the Board's functions, under this Act, for which it is
      necessary and expedient to make regulations."

WP(C) 2893/1999                                                              Page 2 of 4
 3.           Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show to me that

the orders Annexures P-4 and P-5 have been duly notified as required under

the provisions of Section 79(c) read with (k) of the Electricity (Supply) Act,

1948, and as per which provisions, the rules become applicable only by their

notification in the Official Gazette. The Electricity Board functioning under

the Electricity (Supply) Act, is bound by the provisions of the Act and once

the Act requires that notifications have to be issued in the Official Gazette

for making of regulations, unless the rules/regulations are gazetted, the same

would not have the force of law.


4.           In view of the above, since the relevant orders have not been

notified, petitioner cannot claim equivalence of the post of Supervisor

(Electronics) to the post of Foreman (Electronics), and therefore, since the

applicable rules for the appointment to the post of AE (Electronics) required

persons to have a degree in Electrical/Mechanical Engineering and petitioner

did not have this degree but only had a degree in Electronics, petitioner

cannot be considered for promotion to the post of AE (Electronics).


5.           It may be noted that it is even not the case of the petitioner that

the orders Annexures P-4 and P-5 have been implemented by notifying the

same and other persons have got benefits of the orders but the petitioner has

WP(C) 2893/1999                                                              Page 3 of 4
 not got the benefit of promotion. Once no one has been given benefit of the

un-notified and unapproved orders Annexures P-4 and P-5, petitioner is also

not entitled to the benefits of these orders including of promotion.

6.           Dismissed.



MARCH 09, 2015                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib