Rajiv Lochan v. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd and Anr

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

¶1The petitioner sought voluntary retirement from respondent No. 1/BSES Rajdhani Power Limited. Petitioner was the employee of the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) and on unbundling of DVB, petitioner's services were taken over by the respondent No. 1. It is not

disputed before me that the petitioner was entitled to and would be given voluntary retirement in terms of Rule 48(A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, however, the issue is which entity will be liable to make payment of pension to the petitioner. I have had an occasion to consider this issue in a series of cases being Iqbal Chand vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (W.P.(C) 13834/2009 decided on 31.01.2013), Tulsi Ram Arya vs. Chairman D.V.B. & Ors. (W.P.(C) 618/2001 decided on 31.01.2013) and Smt. Pawan Vohra vs. The Chairman, DVB Pension Trust and Anr. (W.P.

(C) 1680/2012 decided on 17.05.2013). I have held that whatever be the liability towards terminal benefits of an employee, under whatever head, the said liability is necessarily of the private DISCOMS and the private DISCOMS cannot refuse to discharge its obligation.

¶2I am bound by my aforesaid judgments and, therefore, adopting the ratio as laid down in the aforesaid judgments and particularly the cases of Rosy Jain Vs. GNCT of Delhi and Ors. (W.P.(C) 4532/2010 decided on

09.07.2013, Naresh Kumar vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. (WP(C) No. 957/2011, decided on 10.07.2013), the writ petition is allowed, and the respondent No. 1 is directed to make payments of all terminal benefits to the petitioner taking the petitioner as having retired on 18.2.2009. Petitioner

will also be entitled to interest from the respondent No. 1 @ 9% per annum simple from 18.2.2009 till a period of two months from today. In case the entire amount of arrears will not be paid within two months, thereafter, petitioner will be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum simple.

¶3I may note that learned counsel appearing for the petitioner again sought to argue that the private DISCOMS are not liable because the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Babu Ram Jain & Ors. vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. dated 04.08.2011 is stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an SLP. However, there is no stay of operation of the judgments which are passed by this Court and in any case, I am informed that the order is only an interim order which is yet to be confirmed as SLP allowed for that matter by setting aside judgment in the case of Babu Ram Jain (supra).

Learned counsel for the petitioner to the contrary contends that his case is not on the same footing as is the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶4The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Both the parties will be bound by the ratio of the judgments in the cases of Iqbal

Chand vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (W.P.(C) 13834/2009 decided on 31.01.2013) and Rosy Jain Vs. GNCT of Delhi and Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 4532/2010 decided on 09.07.2013).

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J JULY22, 2013 godara

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W. P. (C) 7979/2011 % 22nd July, 2013 SH. RAJIV LOCHAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal, Mr. H.L. Verma, Advocates Versus BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocates for respondent No. 1. Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. H.S. Sachdeva, Advocates for respondent No. 2. Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate for respondent No. 3 with Mr. P. Narayan, Manager of Pension Trust. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?