Delhi High Court
Mahesh Chandra Gurani vs Tata Power Delhi Dist. Ltd. on 23 September, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
I-9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: September 23, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 9128/2015 & C.M. 20757/2015
MAHESH CHANDRA GURANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vimal Wadhawan, Advocate
versus
TATA POWER DELHI DIST. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In this petition, a direction is sought to respondent to grant time
bound promotion scale of Executive Engineer to petitioner w.e.f. 7th July,
1997 and the scale of Superintendent Engineer w.e.f. 7 th July, 2015 with
consequential benefits.
Petitioner had taken voluntary retirement in September, 2006 and
now in the year 2015, the aforesaid relief is being claimed. This petition
is apparently hit by delay and latches.
To overcome the delay aspect, learned counsel for petitioner
submits that petitioner confines the relief claimed to the last three years
only and that in W.P.(C) 2237/2002, similar relief already stands granted
and so, petitioner also deserves similar relief as claimed in this petition.
Learned counsel for respondent had drawn attention of this Court
to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Deepak Mohan Sethi & ors.
Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & anr. 2014 SCConline Del 2886 to
submit that similar petitioner already stands dismissed on the ground of
delay and latches and also on the ground that the similarly placed persons
had taken voluntary retirement without any demur or protest. It is
submitted by learned counsel for respondent that the decision in Deepak
Mohan Sethi (Supra) has been affirmed by the Apex Court. Thus,
dismissal of this petition is sought.
At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in Deepak
Mohan Sethi (Supra) relied upon by respondent has no application to the
facts of the instant case, as the aforesaid decision was based upon
'Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme' whereas petitioner had sought
voluntary retirement simplicitor under Section 48-A of The Pension
Rules.
After hearing counsel representing both the sides and in the facts
and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to direct
respondent to treat this writ petition as Representation and to decide it
within twelve weeks by passing a speaking order while taking into
consideration the applicable rules and regulations, the decision relied
upon and in view of the fact that petitioner has confined his claim to the
last three years only. Since petitioner confines his claims to the last three
years, therefore, objection of delay and latches would be no longer
available to the respondent. The fate of the Representation be conveyed
to petitioner soon thereafter.
With aforesaid directions, this petition and application are disposed
of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
September 23, 2015
r
