Delhi High Court
Mukul Agarwal vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. New ... on 27 April, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: April 27, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 4303/2018
+ W.P.(C) 4368/2018
MUKUL AGARWAL
SH. NAVEEN KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate
versus
BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. NEW DELHI
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. A.K. Roy, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. In the above-captioned first petition, petitioner-Mukul Agarwal has
resigned as Manager (Finance) from Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as 'BHEL') and his resignation was accepted by
the Competent Authority w.e.f. 28th March, 2015. It is so evident from
respondent's Communication of 28th March, 2015 (Annexure P-5 colly.).
2. In the above-captioned second petition, petitioner-Naveen Kumar
Gupta had resigned as DGM (Finance) from BHEL on 17 th October, 2015
and his resignation was accepted w.e.f. aforesaid date by respondent-
BHEL vide Communication of 30th October, 2015 (Annexure P-10). Both
petitioners had sought transfer of leave balance and pension contribution
from respondent-BHEL to Rural Electrification Corporation Limited
(hereinafter referred to as 'REC') and National Pension Scheme
(hereinafter referred to as 'NPS') respectively.
3. Two applications of petitioner-Mukul Agarwal for transfer of leave
balance and pension contribution stand declined vide impugned
Communication of 7th May, 2016 and 1st June, 2017 by respondent-BHEL
while observing that transfer of leave is not permissible in case of
resignation and pension scheme in BHEL and REC are not similar and so,
it is not possible to transfer the pension contributions. It is the case of
petitioner-Naveen Kumar Gupta that Representation made on 27th
September, 2016 has not been responded to despite reminder of 10th
November, 2017.
4. Since the relief sought in the above-captioned two petitions is
identical, therefore, these petitions have been heard together and are
being disposed of by this common order.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners draws attention of this Court to
Office Memorandum of 1st February, 2017 (Annexure P-4 in W.P.(C)
4303/2018), which clarifies that if the Competent Authority has not
forwarded the resignation through proper channel, then the benefit of past
service will not be admissible. Attention of this Court is also drawn to
O.M. of 25th January, 1988 (Annexure P-3 in W.P.(C) 4303/2018) to
submit that carry forward of leave and the movement of an employee
from one enterprise to another is permissible.
6. The concise submission of petitioners' counsel is that as per
Chapter-II of the Personnel Manual of which relevant portion is extracted
as Annexure P-11 in W.P.(C) 4303/2018, carry forward of leave is
permissible in case of employees moving from one public enterprise to
the other with the consent of both the Managements.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent-BHEL clarifies that
the O.Ms. are amended from time to time and it needs to be clarified as to
what were the prevalent O.Ms. when the resignations of petitioners were
accepted. He also submits that in case Representation of petitioner-
Naveen Kumar Gupta has not been responded to, then it would be so
done expeditiously.
8. To enable respondent-BHEL to do so, three weeks' time is granted
to petitioners to now file a concise Representation to seek the relief as
sought in these petitions. Such a course is adopted because impugned
Communications of 7th May, 2016 and 1st June, 2017 in W.P.(C)
4303/2018 do not take note of the afore-referred O.Ms. and the Personnel
Manual. It is made clear that if the pension scheme of the two
organizations is not comparable, then pension has to be transferred to
NPS or has to be released to the concerned employee. Upon receipt of
such Representations, respondent-BHEL shall reconsider the impugned
Communications of 7th May, 2016 and 1st June, 2017 within a period of
six weeks, by passing a speaking order, in case the relief sought is not
granted to petitioners. The fate of Representations so made, be conveyed
to petitioners within two weeks thereafter, so that petitioners may avail of
the remedies as available in law, if need be.
9. With aforesaid directions, these petitions are accordingly disposed
of.
Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 27, 2018
s
