Sushil Kumar Khanna Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. - (High Court of Delhi) (31 Aug 2017)
If an issue stood decided, the benefit thereof must be given to similarly placed persons
The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner with prayers for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to allow the Time Bound Promotion Scale of Executive Engineer to the Petitioner w.e.f 26th September, 2000 and the Scale of Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 26.9.2008 and other consequential benefits and interest as per law. The Petitioner was appointed as Inspector in the erstwhile Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU) on September 26, 1981. DESU later became Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB), which ultimately was restructured into number of separate entities. On July 23, 1997, Time Bound Promotion Scheme (TBPS) was introduced by the then DVB.
According to the Petitioner the Scheme contemplated, all employees shall be entitled to the first TBPS on completion of ten years of regular service and second TBPS on completion of further eight years of service. It is averred, on August 30, 1999 the posts of Inspector (Electrical) and Superintendent (Tech) were merged in one cadre and re-designated as Junior Engineer (JE) in the lower scale of pay. It is the case of the Petitioner that on December 20, 1999, it was clarified that the third TBPS would be granted on the completion of further eight years of service after second TBPS i.e., on completion of 26 years of service.
The judgment in the case of M.K. Saini v. Indraprastha Power Generation Company Ltd. is a judgment not in-personam but a judgment in-rem as that is an adjudication on a particular subject matter (grant of TBPS), rather than an adjudication between the parties claiming personal benefits/rights and as such, is binding in a subsequent proceeding, though the parties are not the same. That apart, on parity with employees of DTL, the Petitioner shall be entitled to the benefits. It is a settled law of the Supreme Court that if an issue stood decided, the benefit thereof must be given to similarly placed persons.
In the present case, concedingly the Respondent was not a party in the petition filed by M.K. Saini but on an interpretation of the circulars, which have also been relied upon by the Petitioner in this case, if a judgment has been rendered, surely the benefit of such an interpretation need to be given to the Petitioner in the case in hand. Moreover, M.K. Saini and the Petitioner herein have started their service in DESU/DVB and the relief has been granted to M.K. Saini from the date he was in DESU/DVB. The relief as being sought by the Petitioner, also from the date when the Petitioner was in DESU/DVB with identical service conditions. The pension/retiral benefits are consequential, which would automatically need to be revised.
The Petitioner in present case shall be entitled to the benefits in the same manner granted in favour of M.K. Saini in his case, as his first TBPS shall relate back to September 26, 1991; second TBPS w.e.f September 26, 1999; and third TBPS w.e.f. September 26, 2007 respectively. As this Court had issued notice limited to the claim of pensionary benefits from three years preceding the filing of this petition and the petition having been filed on September 13, 2013, the Respondents are directed to fix the pay of the Petitioner on September 26, 1991 (first TBPS); September 26, 1999 (second TBPS) and September 26, 2007 (third TBPS) notionally and the actual arrears thereof shall be granted w.e.f September 13, 2010 (three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition). The pension/retiral benefits shall be refixed and arrears thereof shall be granted to the Petitioner.
Relevant : M.K. Saini v. Indraprastha Power Generation Company Ltd.
Tags : PROMOTION SCALE GRANT