Decided on August 24,2007

ARUN GOEL Respondents


- (1.) The Petitioner filed Writ Petition (C) No. 1642 of 2002 against the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board ('DVB') for a direction to grant the third time- bound promotional grade to the Petitioner with effect from 30.7.1998 as well as all the consequential and retiral benefits. The grievance was that the Departmental Promotion Committee ('DPC') which met on 21.5.2001 had granted the third time-bound promotional scale to 11 persons including two persons junior to the Petitioner whereas the Petitioner's case was deferred awaiting advice of the legal department since certain departmental proceedings were pending against him. This Court found that the departmental proceedings had culminated on 20.3.2001 with the Petitioner being awarded the penalty of 'censure'. It was therefore held that the Petitioner's case for promotion had to be considered by the DPC. Accordingly by an Order dated 8.12.2003 disposing of W.P. (C) No. 1642 of 2002, this Court directed : "(a) If in the DPC, which met in the month of May, 2001, name of the petitioner was considered but recommendations have been put in a sealed cover, same shall be opened and given effect to. (b) If the name of the petitioner was not considered by the DPC review DPC be convened and name of the petitioner be considered with effect from the date the third time promotional scale has been granted to the persons junior to the petitioners. With the directions aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of."
(2.) Even while the said writ petition was pending, DVB had been unbundled and been split up into different entities with effect from 1.7.2002 in terms of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 ('DERA') and the Delhi Electricity Transfer Scheme Rules 2001. The Delhi Power Company Ltd. (the Delhi Transco Limited) ['DPCL/DTL'] became the successor entity to the DVB as far as the present case is concerned. It was, in fact, the DTL that filed an affidavit in the Writ Petition (C) No. 1642 of 2002 in December 2002. After the Order dated 8.12.2003, the Petitioner wrote to the DPCL on 20.2.2004 seeking implementation of the said order. Thereafter the Petitioner filed an application for clarification.
(3.) On 17.5.2004 this Court passed the following order in CM No. 6733 of 2004 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1642 of 2002 : "By way of the present application, petitioner prays that directions issued vide order dated 8.12.2003 be clarified as per averments made in para 8 of the application. Averments made in para 8 of the application read as under:- "That it shall, therefore, be expedient and in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to clarify the order dated 8.12.2003 that the petitioner be considered for promotion with effect from the date from which he was eligible for the third time promotional scale viz. 30.7.1998." Order dated 8.12.2003 is clear. In the said order, I have clearly recorded as under:- "Grievance of the petitioner is that his case was not considered by the said departmental promotional committee. As a consequence thereof, persons junior to the petitioner have been granted the third time bound promotion scale with effect from 30th July, 1998 under cover of order dated 31st May, 2001." In view of the specific observations of this Court in the order dated 8.12.2003, directions issued are clear. Since persons junior to the petitioner were granted benefit of the third time bound promotion scale w.e.f. 30.7.1998 vide order dated 31.5.2001, it is obvious that right of the petitioner to be considered for grant of third time bound promotion scale has to be w.e.f. 30.7.1998. C.M. Stands disposed of. Dasti.";

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.