Delhi District Court
Sh. M.L. Chopra vs A. Transco on 28 November, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN:
CIVIL JUDGE-7 (CENTRAL) : DELHI
Civil Suit No. : 997/11/97
Unique Case ID No : N.A.
In the matter of:
1. Sh. M.L. Chopra
Son of Sh. C.B. Chopra
R/o 597, Bhai Parmanand Colony
Delhi- 110009
2. Sh. D.N. Arora
Son of Sh. Hari Chand Arora
R/o PP- 66, Pitampura
Delhi- 110034
3. Sh. G.K. Kochhar
S/o Late Sh. Ramlal
R/o G-2, DVB, Sub Station Preet Vihar
New Delhi- 110092 .............. Plaintiffs
Versus
1. A. Transco
Shakti Bhawan, ITO
Delhi
B. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
BPRL (A electricity Distribution Company)
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place
New Delhi
C. NDPL ( Through C.E.O.)
Delhi
2. Sh. H.C. Gaur
Administrative Officer (P-6)
Delhi Vidyut Board
Shakti Bhawan, Behind DTC, Terminal
Nehru Place, New Delhi- 110019
Sh. M.L. Chopra Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board & Ors. 1/17
3. Sh. B. Subhash
Administrative Officer (P-4)
Delhi Vidyut Board
Shakti Bhawan, Behind DTC, Terminal
Nehru Place, New Delhi- 110019
4. Sh. L.D. Sehra
Administrative Officer (confidential)
Delhi Vidyut Board
Shakti Bhawan, Behind DTC, Terminal
Nehru Place, New Delhi- 110019 ............ Defendants
Date of institution of the Suit : 04.09.1999
Date on which order was reserved : 28.11.2013
Date of decision : 28.11.2013
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT :-
1. Vide this judgment this court shall decide suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed on the averments that the plaintiffs are the employees of Delhi Vidyut Board and were appointed in Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking in terms of Section 92 of the DMC Act, 1957.
2. The plaintiffs were initially appointed under the category 'C' post as per rules and regulations applicable to MCD under the DMC, Act, 1957.
3. It is averred that the plaintiffs are entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Administrative Officers in terms of notified R and P Regulations as notified on 8th January, 1982. The plaintiffs fulfilled all the requirement as desired under the said notified R and P Rules, which have been amended in consultation with UPSC.
4. The plaintiffs have got experience of more than eight years on the post of Sh. M.L. Chopra Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board & Ors. 2/17 Private Secretary and they have already been considered for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer.
5. As per orders of Government of India dated 02.03.1988, it was ordered that all appointments of Government Servant in Central Autonomous body should be only on immediate absorption basis in respect of post in:-
a) Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
b) NDMC.
c) Following posts under DESU.
i. G.M. (1)
ii. A.G.M. (1)
iii. F.A. And CAO (1)
iv. Director Vigilance (1)
v. O.S.D. Enquiry and Legal (1)
vi. D.F.O. (2)
vii. Asstt. Vigilance Officer (1)
viii.Vigilance Officer (2)
6. The said order was made applicable to Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking vide resolution No. 800 dated 28.11.1988.
7. The appointment on deputation can only be made in respect of the posts as mentioned herein- before in respect of eight posts and not for any other posts. The post of Administrative Officer was not included in the post on which appointment can be made on deputation.
8. As per notified R and P Rules it was provided that the recruitment shall be made to the post of Administrative Officer by following quota i.e. 66.2/3% by promotion failing which by transfer on deputation and 33.1/3% by transfer on deputation failing which by direct recruitment. Since the transfer on deputation was discouraged by the order of Government of India as applicable to the MCD, the promotional exercise was conducted Sh. M.L. Chopra Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board & Ors. 3/17 in respect of the promotion by transfer only from the list of eligible department candidates. One such exercise was undertaken in the year 1989 and all the persons so appointed were promoted from eligible department candidates.
9. The promotional exercise was undertaken in the year 1998, and according to notified R and P Regulations, the four posts were required to be filled up by promotion, because the share of deputation quota being already filled up. A meeting of DPC was held on 27.02.1998 in which six officers were considered and approved for promotion of which the plaintiff No. 1 and 2 were also included. Two out of six such officers have already been appointed/ promoted and next available vacancies are to be filled by the plaintiff No. 1 and 2 and are awaiting for promotion to such posts as and when such vacancies are available.
10. It came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the management is trying to give unwarranted advantage to the persons appointed on ad-hoc deputation and are trying to absorb the said deputationist as Administrative Officers against the regular posts contrary to the notified R and P Regulations and without consulting UPSC, as is mandatory under the Rules and Regulations.
11. As per the Section 511- A of the DMC act, temporarily provision with respect of Electricity, Water and Sewage etc., notwithstanding the commencement of DMC Amendment Act, 1993, were deemed to continue in operation till such date as the Cetnral Government may, by notification in official Gazette specify, in respect of any of the aforesaid matters. Thus, after coming into the operation of the amendments and cessation of the temporary provisions and transferring of functioning of corporation in relation to the electricity to Delhi Vidyut Board, the service condition of every official and other employees serving under the corporation immediately before such commencement in connection with the transfer Sh. M.L. Chopra Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board & Ors. 4/17 function was to be transferred and become an officer of the new authority concerned (DVB) with such designation as such an authority may determine and he was to hold office by the same tenure and on the same remuneration and on the same terms and conditions of the service as he would have held if the New Authority (Delhi Vidyut Board) had not been established and he was to continue to do so unless and until such tenure, the remuneration and terms and conditions were altered by that authority.
12. It was further provided that the tenure, remuneration and terms and conditions of any such officials shall not be altered to his dis- advantage without the previous sanction of the Central Government.
13. The appointment was to be made to the post of Administrative Officer as per the notified R and P Rules and that too in consultation with UPSC since the Delhi Vidyut Board/ defendant No. 1 has neither notified any new rules for appointment to the post of Administrative Officer and have not consulted Central Government for any change/ amendment in such notified rules: the notification dated 08.01.1992 continued to be in force and the appointment made contrary to such rules is void, illegal, unwarranted, unjustified and liable to be struck down.
14. If the absorption is made contrary to R and P Regulations it will be illegal and would also infringe the legal rights of the plaintiff No. 1 and 2 who have been considered for promotion and are awaiting posting.
15. The plaintiffs have been serving the DESU/ DVB since 1964 and have acquired the special knowledge about the working of the DESU/ DVB and if their claim for promotion is ignored at this stage on illegal ground they will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
16. It is further averred that the defendant No. 1 was considering the absorption of the defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 to regular posts, contrary to the Sh. M.L. Chopra Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board & Ors. 5/17 notified R and P Regulations, and therefore, one of the plaintiff sent his representation dated 16.04.1999 to the defendant No. 1. There was another representation sent to defendant No. 1 for consideration through DESU officers Association dated 10.05.1999. Another representation was forwarded through the DVB Engineers Association being dated 27.05.1999. The said representations were not duly considered by the management/ defendant and the grievances of the concerned officials were ignored as per reply sent by A.G.M. (Admn.) dated 22.06.1999. The said reply does not speak of any consultation with either Central Government or UPSC in respect of the appointment of defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 to the post of Administrative Officer/ Addl. Chief Personnel Officer on permanent absorption (regular) basis.
17. It is further averred that it has come to the knowledge of the plaintiffs that DVB in its next board meeting is going to approve the appointment of defendant no. 2, 3 and 4 for permanent absorption and in case such appointment on regular basis by absorbing the deputationist contrary to notified R and P Regulations, is made the plaintiffs shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.
18. It is further averred that the defendant No. 1, is acting illegally and contrary to notified R and P Regulations and is going to pass an order absorbing the defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 on permanent basis in DVB to the post of Administrative Officers illegally as there is no provisions whatsoever for absorbing the officers who have been posted on deputation basis to a regular post as per the orders of Government of India as adopted by the DESU/ MCD.
19. It is mandatory for DVB to consult UPSC before making any appointment or absorption. No consultation whatsoever has been done with UPSC for absorption of such officials to the post of Administrative Officers. Moreover, vide the decision of Desk dated 27.02.1998, the promotional Sh. M.L. Chopra Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board & Ors. 6/17 exercise to the post of Administrative Officials in respect of the plaintiff No. 1 and 2 has already been complete and only the posting orders are to be issued. At present the claim of the plaintiff No. 1 and 2 are being ignored and are not being considered as only they are to be appointed against the post of Administrative Officers and nobody on deputation basis can be absorbed to the post of A.O.. Thus, the legal rights of the plaintiff No. 1 and 2 are being infringed and they are left with no alternative but to approach the court.
20. Following reliefs claimed :-
a) A decree for declaration, thereby declaring that absorption of deputationist to the post of Administrative Officer/ ACPO contrary to notified R and P Rules, notified on 08.01.1982, is illegal, and the plaintiffs are to be considered and appointed to the post of Administrative Officers.
b) A decree for declaration, thereby declaring therein that no appointment on deputation be made except for 8 posts as mentioned in para 7 of the plaint, in terms of resolution No. 800 dated 27.11.1988 passed by MCD and implemented by DESU (Now DVB).
c) A decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants/ DVB thereby restraining the defendant No. 1 from appointing the defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 to the post of Administrative Officers/ ACPO contrary to the notified R and P Regulations.
21. In Written Statement filed on behalf of the defendants it is averred that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable and is infructuous. At present there are 18 sanctioned posts of Administrative Officers. According to the R and P Regulations, 2/3rd of the posts are required to be filled up by promotion from the categories of private secretary/ assistant personal office. 1/3rd of the posts are required to be filled up by transfer on deputation. From this Sh. M.L. Chopra Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board & Ors. 7/17 its is clear that 12 posts are meant for promotion quota and 6 for transfer- on-deputation quota. All the 12 posts meant for promotion quota have been filled up and out of the six posts meant for deputation quota it is stated that four have already been filled up and two are lying vacant.
22. For these two posts it is stated that offer of appointment have already been issued from the panel recently approved by defendant DVB. As soon as the persons join duty no post will remain vacant in the cadre of Administrative Officer.
23. There is a separate quota for department promotees and deputationist on the ration of 2:1 for the post of Administrative Officer.
24. The plaintiffs are working as "private secretary" on ad-hoc basis and are not eligible for regular promotion to the post of Administrative Officer.
25. In the absence of any order of absorption appointing officers presently working as Administrative Officers on deputation no cause of action has arisen.
26. Section 15 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 which governs the Delhi Vidyut Board deals with appointment of staff. According to Section 15 of the Act, the board may appoint a Secretary and such other officers and employees as may be required to enable the board to carry out its functions under this Act. As regards consultation with UPSC neither the Electricity (Supply) Act nor Article 320 (1) and 321 of the constitution imposes any restrictions on the Delhi Vidyut Board. The appointing Authority has power to appoint any officer in exercise of the powers delegated to him under Section 15 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.
27. After the formation of DVB vide notification dated 24.02.1997 the existing R and P Regulations are protected under Section 511 (B) of the Delhi Sh. M.L. Chopra Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board & Ors. 8/17 Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 as amended in 1993 as such R and P Regulations still exist. Therefore, as and when regular appointments of 2/3 quota by promotion failing which transfer on deputation and 1/3 quota by transfer on deputation failing which by direct recruitment is made, the matter will be referred to the UPSC.
28. On merits it is submitted that two third promotion quota of the sanctioned posts of Administrative Officer is earmarked to the Private Secretaries, Asst. Personnel Officer and O&M officers with eight years regular service. As the plaintiffs are holding to the post of Private Secretary on ad- hoc basis they cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer on regular basis.
29. The plaintiff are not having eight years regular service hence they are not entitled to the posts.
30. The true pictures is that all appointments except the following will be made on permanent absorption basis in terms of orders dated 02.03.1988 i. General Manager -1 ii. Addl. General Manager -1 iii. FA& CAO -1 iv. Director of Vigilance -1 v. OSD (Equity & Legal) - 1 vi. Dy. Finance Officer -2 vii. Asst. Vigilance Officer -1 viii.Vigilance Officer -2 The order further stipulates that appointment of Government servants in the above mentioned post can also be made on deputation basis if any of the deputationist is absorbed permanently the other provisions of the above mentioned OM with regard to terms and conditions of deputation would apply. In terms of ministry of Finanace's OM No. 5(25)/83- DPE Sh. M.L. Chopra Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board & Ors. 9/17 (EESE) dated 06.03.1985 the Government have reviewed the policy regarding deputation of Government officers to Central public enterprises in the context or the need for tuning the performance of public enterprises. In suppression of all extent orders on the subject it has been decided that deputation of all Government officers including those belonging to Defence service of all posts (whether Board level or below Board Level) in Central public enterprises except in the cases mentioned in the following paragraphs not be permitted from the date of issue of this OM i.e. dated 06.03.1985. Thereafter, such officers could join the post in the central public enterprises only on immediate absorption basis. The instructions issued by the department of Personnel vide their office memorandum No. 28016/5/85 Estd(c) dated 31.01.1986 and No. 4 (12)/85- P and PW dated 31.03.1987 were placed before the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the MCD and vide decision No. 800 dated 28.11.1988 resolved that the instructions contained therein and the order issued by the Government of India should applied to DESU. Therefore, vide resolution no, referred to above all appointments except for the 8 above posts should be made on permanent absorption basis. Only the vacancies available during a particular period were filled up from amongst the categories eligible only on ad- hoc basis and it was according to the notified R and P Regulations. The eligible officers will be considered for promotion in accordance with their quota earmarked and the availability of vacancies as and when their turn comes up. It is further submitted that in exercise of power conferred by Clause (b) of Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (54 of 1948) read with Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs notification S.O 68 (E) No. U 14011/58/91 Delhi II dated 29.01.1997 (copy annexed) and with the concurrence of the Central Government the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi is pleased to constitute a State Electricity Board for the National Capital Territory of Delhi under the name of "Delhi Vidyut Board".
31. The notification dated 24.02.1997 deals with the transfer functions. It Sh. M.L. Chopra Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board & Ors. 10/17 states that w.e.f. the date of the notification issued by the Center Government under Section 511- A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 relating to Electric Supply, the board shall be the "new authority"
referred to in sub- section (1) of Section 511 B of the said Act and shall perform the "transferred functions", being those relating to electric supply, referred to therein, and the provisions of Section 511- B of the said Act shall supply to the Board as such new authority in respect of electricity supply.
32. The designations of the other employees of the Corporation working under the undertaking shall remain the same until modified by the board.
33. Therefore, the transferred function apply to Board i.e. new authority in respect of electricity supply. Paragraph 3 of the notification deals with the powers, functions and working of the board. The board shall perform the duties of a State Electricity Board as provided in the Act, shall follow all provisions of the Act, and of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910) and the rules made thereunder, and shall exercise all powers and discharge all obligations as provided in the said Acts and the rules made thereunder.
34. It is submitted that the quota pertaining to promotion will not be taken away for the purpose of absorption, if any such cause of action arise. As on date no vacancy pertaining to promotion quota is trying vacant.
35. It is stated that contrary to the instructions contained in the conduct rules joint representation was addressed to the Chairman, Delhi Vidyut Board, New Delhi by Shri M.L. Chopra, plaintiff No. 1 and Ram Lal Private Secretary. Under the rules an officers is entitled to submit individual representation to the authority concerned and not a joint representation. It no representation was ever received from DVB. Engineers Association enclosing with it the representation of the plaintiffs namely S/ Sh. M.L/ Sh. M.L. Chopra Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board & Ors. 11/17 Chopra and S.N. Kochar. Therefore, it is not a correct representation of the facts brought before the Hon'ble Court. DVB Engineers Association, however, took up the case and they were replied to be our letter dated 22.06.1999. It is prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed with cost.
36. In replication filed on behalf of the plaintiff to the amended Written Statement it is specifically denied that according to R and P regulations, 2/3rd of the posts are required to be filed up by promotion from the category of Private Secretary/ APO and 1/3rd post are required to be filled up by transfer on deputation.
37. It is averred that six posts of Administrative Officers have since become vacant due to superannuation or promotion of the concerned officials, the details are as under:-
i. Sh. A.K. Lalwani, A.O. Superannuated
ii. Sh. S.P. Katyal, A.O. Superannuated
iii. Sh. OM Prakash, A.O. On Promotion as ACPO
iv. Sh. R.N. Khurana, A.O. On Promotion as ACPO
v. Sh. Nand Kishore, A.O. Superannuated
vi. Sh. D.S. Madan, ACPO Superannuated
38. All the officers referred to above from N. 1 to 6 were working as Administrative Officers. The defendant had been promoting private Secretaries on ad- hoc basis previously to the post of Administrative Officer. Rest the contents of plaint reiterated and reaffirmed and it is prayed that suit be decreed.
39. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed on 05.10.2004:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for declaration as prayed for? OPP.
Sh. M.L. Chopra Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board & Ors. 12/17
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.
3. Relief.
40. Plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and PW-2, Sh. S.N. Kochhar in order to establish his case. Defendant has examined as DW-1A, Sh. R.K. Pahuja, Deputy Manager (HR) G- Delhi Tansco Ltd., Shakti Sadan, Kotla Road, New Delhi-02. All the witnesses were duly cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for opposite parties.
41. I have heard the final arguments of both the parties and perused the record carefully.
42. It is pertinent to mention that plaintiff No. 2 Sh. D.N. Arora died during pendency of the suit and plaintiff No. 3 Sh. S.N. Kochar made a statement in the department that because of his physical disablement, he does not claim any relief in the present suit, as such, final arguments are being heard on behalf of plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 A and 1B.
43. Issue wise findings of this court are given below:-
44. ISSUE NO. 1.
45. ISSUE NO. 1 AND 2 TAKEN TOGETHER FOR SAKE OF CONVENIENCE.
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for declaration as prayed for? OPP."
"Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.'' The onus to prove this issue was on plaintiff and plaintiff has examined plaintiff No. 1 and Sh. S.N. Kochar (plaintiff No. 3) as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively. PW-1 reiterated the contents of the plaint in his affidavit Ex. P-1 and relied upon following documents:-
Sh. M.L. Chopra Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board & Ors. 13/17
1. Photocopy of notification R and P regulations as Mark A.
2. Photocopy of orders dated 02.03.1998 as Mark B.
3. Photocopy of order bearing No. F49143/A&G/NT/94/145 dated 21.12.1999 as Mark D.
4. Photocopy of gazette notification dated 02.01.1972 (colly) Mark E.
5. Photocopy of resolution dated 16.07.1998 as Mark F.
6. Photocopy of letter dated 11.08.1989 as Mark G.
7. Photocopy of letter dated 22.06.1999 as Mark H.
8. Photocopy of letter dated 28.08.2000 as Mark I.
9. Photocopy of order dated 08.09.1999 as Mark J.
10. Photocopy of order dated 07.02.2000 as Mark K.
11. Photocopy of letter dated 25.06.1999 as Mark L.
12. Photocopy of letter dated 16.04.1999 as Mark M.
13. Photocopy of letter dated 10.05.1999 as Mark N.
14. Photocopy of letter dated 27.05.1999 as Mark O.
15. Photocopy of gazette notification dated 20.11.2001 as Mark P. All the aforesaid documents were marked as they are photocopy documents and originals of aforesaid documents were never produced and persons from concerned department are not examined by the plaintiff in order to prove and exhibit aforesaid marked documents. As such, none of the aforesaid documents is proved in accordance with law.
PW-1 i.e. plaintiff No. 1, Sh. M.L. Chopra, categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. P-1 that he has retired on 31.12.2003 after taking VRS and the plaintiff No. 2 died on 18.11.2001. PW-1 was duly cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant No. 1A wherein he deposed that on 31.12.2003 he has taken VRS from the BSES and he has never worked with Delhi Transco Ltd. and NDPL.
PW-2, Sh. S.N. Kochar (plaintiff No. 3) tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-2/A and reiterated the contents of plaint in his affidavit Sh. M.L. Chopra Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board & Ors. 14/17 and relied upon following documents :-
16. Photocopy of letter dated 09.03.1998 as Mark Q.
17. Photocopy of office order dated 20.05.2004 as Mark R.
18. Photocopy of letter dated 19.11.2002 as Mark S.
19. Photocopy of letter dated 29.11.2002 as Mark T.
20. Photocopy of letter dated 24.06.2004 as Mark U. PW-2 categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit that plaintiff No. 1 has retired on 31.12.2003 on VRS and plaintiff No. 2 died on 18.11.2001 and he himself retired on 31.08.2005. He further deposed that defendant No. 1 is acting illegally and contrary to the R and P regulations and is going to pass an order absorbing defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 on permanent basis in DVB to the post of Administrative Officer. He was duly cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant No. 1A wherein he categorically deposed that "it is correct that my suit was filed due to the apprehension that department was going to absorb defendant No. 2 to
4. It is correct that these defendant No. 2 to 4 were not absorbed.'' It is defence of the defendant that they have not acted in violation of any rules and regulations as alleged in the plaint and they have not absorbed any deputationist as Administrative Officer contrary to the rules and regulations. Defendant has examined one witness namely, Sh. R.K. Pahuja, Deputy Manager of defendant No. 1 A, who has categorically deposed that defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 worked on the post of A.O. on deputation and were never absorbed he further deposed that appointment of other deputation candidates from the DVB approved panel on ad-hoc basis was carried out vide office order dated 12.12.1999 and 07.02.2000 and he exhibited the said order as Ex. DW-1A/2 and Ex. DW-1A/3. He further deposed that at no time before or after the filing of present suit any deputitionist Administrative Officer were absorbed. Nothing material came out in his cross- examination and he deposed that name of Sh. S.N. Kochar was considered for promotion but he was not given the post of Sh. M.L. Chopra Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board & Ors. 15/17 A.O. as he was not found eligible. He further deposed that Sh. S.N. Kochar (plaintiff No.3) was not found eligible because he did not secure the minimum qualifying marks for the essential eligibility test.
By way of aforesaid deposition it is clear that plaintiffs have already been retired from the service on VRS and therefore, question of granting relief of declaration to the effect that their name be considered and they be appointed to the post of Administrative Officer does not arise. Furthermore, PW-2 had categorically admitted in his cross- examination that defendant No. 2 to 4 were not absorbed therefore, declaration to the effect that their absorption to the post of A.O. is contrary notified R and P Rules and therefore, illegal also become redundant. So far as another relief of declaration pertaining to resolution No. 800 dated 27.11.1988 passed by MCD and implemented by DVB is concerned, the aforesaid resolution is not produced in original and has not been proved in accordance with law. As such, this relief also cannot be granted.
Plaintiff has also claimed a decree for permanent injunction for restraining defendant No. 1 from appointing defendant No. 2 ,3 and 4 to the post of Administrative Officer contrary to the notify R and P regulations. However, as discussed above while appreciating oral evidence in the form of testimony of PW-2 and the DW-1, it is clear that defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 are not absorbed contrary to the notified R and P regulations. As such, this issue is also decided in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff.
In view of aforesaid discussion, both the issues are decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.
46. ISSUE NO. 3.
"Relief"
In view of decision on aforesaid issues, suit of plaintiff is dismissed.
Sh. M.L. Chopra Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board & Ors. 16/17 Parties to bear their own cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28th NOVEMBER, 2013 (SHILPI JAIN) CJ-07 (CENTRAL):DELHI Sh. M.L. Chopra Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board & Ors. 17/17