BRIJ KISHORE PUSHP Vs. ARUN GOEL
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BRIJ KISHORE PUSHP
Click here to view full judgement.
(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
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
(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
"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.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.