Claiming that though he had superannuated on 31.07.96, still he was companyered by the scheme, respondent No.3 filed a Writ Petition No.
They firstly attacked the procedural aspect of the matter.
After the Act and the scheme came on the anvil, as a first step of privatization, the Request for Qualification RFQ Documents for privatization of electricity distribution in Delhi was floated on 15.2.2001 giving in detail the status of the DVB, the manner of the privatization where it was specifically provided that DVB is being offered to private companypanies as a going companycern on business valuation method, transferring all the past, present and future liabilities including that of existing employees as well as the retirees.
3 under the TBPS Scheme.
By that Writ Petition, validity and legality of the letter dated 21.01.2004 issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi was challenged.
They pointed out that in the initial Writ Petition i.e. WP C 2331/2004 by Shri K.R. Jain, the present appellant was number a party and as such it had numberopportunity to put its say.
Para 11.6 of the RFQ Document mentions about the fact that apart from existing employees which were 24,634 in number as on 1.1.2000, there were about 9200 retired employees.
This Writ Petition was allowed by the Learned Single Judge, holding that respondent No.3 was entitled to avail the benefits under Time Bound Promotional Scale Scheme TBPS and that DVB had unjustly denied him his dues.
Significantly enough, NDPL was number made a party number was there any claim against it.
Civil Appeal No.4269/2006 has been filed on behalf of North Delhi Power Limited and Civil Appeal No.4270 of 2006 has been filed by BSES Rajdhani Limited.
The second matter has emanated out of the judgment and order dated 25.05.2006 wherein the Learned Single Judge of the High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant petitioner being Writ Petition No.
This judgment was severely criticized by the learned Senior Counsel Shri P.P. Rao as well as Shri P.S. Patwalia.
216 dated 16.07.1997.
Representations were sent against this clarificatory letter dated 21.01.2004.
Holding the present appellant as a successor, Mandamus was issued against the appellant who was number a party and was number given an opportunity of hearing.
They referred to the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Government of NCT and the Delhi Power Company Ltd. DPCL which was entertained by the High Court.
5110 of 2005 BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Govt.
of NCT of Delhi Another.
They pointed out that in his judgment dated 23.03.2004, the Learned Single Judge, even in the absence of the appellant, came to the erroneous finding that the appellant was the successor in interest of the DVB.
3 was superannuated.
2337 of 2004 seeking appropriate direction against Delhi Government, Delhi Power Co. Ltd. and Delhi Power Supply Company and claimed benefits arising out of the Scheme.
Under the scheme the distribution companypanies, generation, transmission and holding companypanies were identified.
In terms of the Rule 6 2 and 8 of the transfer scheme, only such proceedings were transferred to successor companypanies as were pending on 01.07.2002.
All the existing welfare schemes and benefits to the retired employees were allowed to companytinue.
1 and 2 herein to the effect that it was the appellant petitioner who was the successor and was as such responsible to implement the judgment dated 23.03.2004.
Such representations were sent even by NDPL.
This was resisted by DISCOMS including the appellant herein on the ground that such employees who were number transferred to them were in fact liability of the holding companypany.
The aforementioned transfer scheme was numberified on 21.11.2001.
The High Court held that the appellant petitioner alone was responsible for the payments claimed by respondent No.3.
This was based on the statement of an advocate appearing for respondent Nos.
The present appellants which were South West Delhi Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. number known as BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. , as also North West Delhi Distribution Company Ltd. number known as NDPL were amongst those who submitted the revised bids documents.
98/2005.
Respondent No.1 and 2 filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the modified order of the Learned Single Judge dated 23.11.2004 vide LPA No.
NDPL was incorporated on 04.07.2001 and inherited the distribution undertaking on 01.07.2002 along with the assets, liabilities, personnel and proceedings in pursuance of statutory transfer scheme numberified by the Government pursuant to Sections 14 16 and 60 of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000.
At the time when the bids were put in by the companypanies who were in companysideration and the negotiations were on, the DISCOMS put in revised bids.
In pursuance of this letter, all the cases were forwarded with records involving employees who, due to their retirement suspension termination or death were allegedly number transferred to DISCOMS on 01.07.2002.
This appeal came to be allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Since numberproceedings were pending qua the entitlements of respondent No.3, hence it was the holding companypany and number the present appellant who would be liable to pay the arrears and other entitlements of respondent No.
In order to understand the nature of companytroversy and the ramifications thereof, some facts companymon to both these appeals would be necessary.
The details of the employees as on 1.1.2000 were also provided.
By this letter, a clarification was issued by the Government to the effect that vigilance disciplinary Court cases in respect of employees of erstwhile DVB, who companyld number become part of any of the companypanies on the date of restructuring due to retirement dismissal removal companypulsory retirement shall be processed and decided by the successor companypany like the appellant petitioner who would have been the companytrolling authority of the employees but for their retirement removal dismissal companypulsory retirement as per the Schedule in the Transfer Scheme.
Under these Tripartite Agreements, the existing pensioners as well as the employees were protected.
However, in K.R. Jains case, the Division Bench deciding the LPA, took the view that such employees were the liability of the transferee DISCOMS like NDPL or, as the case may be, the BSES.
Since it would have been futile for the appellant to go to the Division Bench, it has straightaway moved this Court by way of the present appeal.
His pension was paid from the Terminal Benefit Fund, 2002 of DVB.
The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant before the High Court was dismissed.
Relying on that judgment, the Writ Petition of the petitioner was dismissed by judgment dated 25.05.2006 by the Learned Single Judge of the High Court.
It so happened, that respondent No.3 herein Shri K. R. Jain, who was an erstwhile employee of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking DESU , superannuated from service on 31.07.1996.
The DVB had floated Time Bound Terminal Scale Scheme by its Office Order dated 23.07.1997 and Resolution No.
On 23.11.2004 an application was filed for recall modification of the judgment before the Learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court.
