Delhi High Court
Sanjay Kumar Gautam vs Delhi Transco Limited on 26 August, 2020
$~A-14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 26.08.2020
+ W.P. (C) 5659/2020
SANJAY KUMAR GAUTAM ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rahul Jain, Mr. Naveen R.
Nath and Mr. Abhimanyu Verma,
Advocates.
versus
DELHI TRANSCO LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Rameez Raja, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 20488/2020 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application is disposed of.
W.P. (C) 5659/2020 & CM No. 20487/2020
1. Petitioner joined the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU) in
the post of Security Guard on 12.08.1993 and was subsequently promoted
to the post of Instrument Repairer on 17.01.1995. DESU was reorganized
as DVB (Delhi Vidyut Board) on 24.02.1997 and on 28.10.2000,
Tripartite Agreement was signed between the Government of NCT of
Delhi, DVB and Joint Action Committee of Workers, Supervisors,
Engineers and Officers of DVB.
2. On 01.07.2002 DVB was reorganized and divided into six
successor companies and Petitioner was assigned to BSES Rajdhani
Power Limited (BRPL).
3. On 06.09.2006 Petitioner applied for Type-II accommodation with
DTL-New Kilokari Colony and received confirmation of allotment. On
17.09.2008 he was promoted as Instrument Repairer and Tester with
BRPL.
4. On 21.08.2009 DTL issued a new Policy for allotment of Company
accommodation to DTL employees and on 08.07.2010 issued an Office
Order laying down the Grade Pay in the respective Pay Bands, which
would determine the type of residential accommodation.
5. On being promoted as Foreman Grade-II with BRPL, on
11.02.2015, the Petitioner came into a salary bracket which made him
eligible for Type-III accommodation. On 04.10.2016, he made an
application for Type-III accommodation but the same was rejected on the
ground that the accommodation was not available to him as per Clause
19.2 of the Policy. Petitioner, however, did not make any grievance and
accepted the rejection.
6. On being promoted as Assistant Manager on 03.03.2020, the
Petitioner applied for Type-IV accommodation to which the Petitioner
became eligible, according to him, having come in the eligible salary
bracket. On 27.05.2020 the Petitioner made an application for the Type-
IV accommodation but no action has been taken by the Respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that after being
promoted as Foreman Grade-II in 2015, Petitioner being entitled had
applied for Type-III accommodation in 2016. His application was
illegally rejected, but the Petitioner did not make any grievance.
However, the Petitioner has had to approach the Court by way of this writ
petition as he apprehends that his application now made is likely to suffer
the same fate.
8. It is contended that Petitioner has been promoted to the post of
Assistant Manager on 03.03.2020 with BSES Rajdhani Power Limited.
His salary is now in the bracket of 5,400-7,000 making him eligible for
Type-IV accommodation and while he has made an application for
allotment on 27.05.2020, it is pending for the past three months.
9. Learned counsel submits that the Petitioner fears that the present
accommodation may not be allotted to him and he may again be
discriminated as in the past. Basis of the apprehension of the Petitioner is
that after he was allowed inspection of the file relating to the
accommodation of Type-IV flats, he found that seven more applications
from DTL employees, who are in the lower Grade Pay, have been
received and there is every likelihood that the Petitioner will be declared
ineligible by citing Clauses 12.5 and 19.2 of the Policy.
10. It is argued that the Respondent is helping the lower Grade Pay
DTL employees to get higher accommodation. Provisions of Clause 12.5
will apply only when an employee in the eligible Grade Pay is not
available. The application of the Petitioner has been kept deliberately
pending so as to accommodate the DTL employees.
11. Mr. Rameez Raja Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent
takes an objection at the outset that BRPL has not been impleaded as a
party in the present petition. He further submits that the Application of
the Petitioner is pending before the Competent Authority and thus the
present petition is pre-mature.
12. Mr. Raja assures the Court that every endeavour shall be made to
decide the Application as expeditiously as possible and in accordance
with the provisions of the Policy. He assures that the decision shall be
taken keeping in mind the entitlement of the Petitioner in accordance with
his Grade Pay so that no unjust or unfair treatment is meted out to the
Petitioner.
13. The present Petition and accompanying Application are
accordingly disposed of directing the Respondent to consider and dispose
of the Application of the Petitioner, within a period of six weeks from
today. Needless to state that the decision will be as per the various
provisions of the Policy and the entitlement of the Petitioner.
14. In case the Petitioner has any surviving grievance, after the
decision is taken, he is at liberty to resort to such remedies as may be
available to him in law.
JYOTI SINGH, J
AUGUST 26, 2020/yo
