Ajay Kumar Mann vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6950 Del

$~10
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 4176/2015
AJAY KUMAR MANN                                    ..... Petitioner
                           Through:     Mr. Bishwambhar D. Sharma,
                                        Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar,
                                        Advocate.

                           versus

TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. (TPDDL)..... Respondent
                  Through: Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Advocate.

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

% 16.11.2016

C.M. No.7566/2015 (exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

+W.P.(C) No.4176/2015

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner who is an employee of the

respondent seeks the relief of being granted benefits of seniority and

promotion w.e.f 1.7.2013. The case of the petitioner is that merely because

an FIR No.287/1999 was pending, and which is over 15 and half years old at

the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner cannot be denied service

W.P.(C) No.4176/2015 page 1 of 3 benefits including of seniority and promotion in view of the circular of the

Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and

Pensions dated 8.1.2003. In this circular dated 8.1.2003, it is stated that the

sealed cover procedure will be adopted only if an officer is under suspension

or a chargesheet has been issued and departmental proceedings are pending

or there is a prosecution for a criminal charge pending in a court of law

against the employee.

3. I have put a query to the counsel for the respondent as to

whether the circular dated 8.1.2003 as per the counter affidavit of the

respondent is not applicable to the parties, and to which counsel for the

respondent states that in the counter affidavit to the writ petition there is no

denial that the circular dated 8.1.2003 binds the parties to this writ petition.

It is thus seen that neither the petitioner is under suspension nor a charge-

sheet has been issued for disciplinary action nor is there any prosecution for

a criminal charge in a court of law because there is no case pending in a

court of law but there is only an FIR which was around 15 and half years old

at the time of filing of the writ petition and now around 17 years old, and

that there is no committing of the petitioner to a criminal case much less by

W.P.(C) No.4176/2015 page 2 of 3 filing of a charge sheet.

4. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the

respondent is directed to give all service benefits to the petitioner in

accordance with law w.e.f 1.7.2013. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

                                             VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Ne




W.P.(C) No.4176/2015                                             page 3 of 3