Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(4) The Lt.Governor issued another notification of the same date while exercising his power under sub-sections (2), (4) and (5) of Section 5 of the Act. The said notification was also published in Part-IV of Delhi Gazette - Extraordinary by Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi dated 24th February,1997, which is reproduced as under :- (TOBE Published In Part Iv Of The Delhi Gazette - EXTRAORDINARY) Government Of N.C.T Of Delhi (URBAN Development DEPARTMENT) Dated : 24th February,1997 Notification No.F.11(10)/92-LSG/PF(iv) - In exercise of powers conferred by sub- sections (2), (4) & (5) of Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act,1948 (54 of 1948) read with the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs' Notification S./O. 68(E) No.U.14011/ 57/91-Delhi-II dated the 29th January,1997, the Lt.Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, hereby appoints, with immediate effect, the following persons/officials to be the Chairman and Members respectively of the Delhi Vidyut Board constituted under this Government's Notification No.F.11(10)/92-LSG/PF (ii) dated the 24th February,1997, namely :- i) Sh.V.K.Duggal - Chairman ii) Sh.Y.P.Singh - Member (Technical) iii)(To be nominated Later) - Member (Technical) iv) (To be nominated Later) - Member (Adm.) v) Smt.Radha A.Nanjnath- Member (Finance) vi) Sh.S.R.Arya, Pr.Secretary(UD) Govt.of Nct Delhi - Ex.-Officio Member vii)Sh.Dev Trivedi, Secretary (Finance) Govt.of Nct Delhi - Ex-Officio Member. By order and in the name of Lt.Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. sd/- ( N.C.RAY ) JT.SECRETARY (U.D.) Subsequent thereto the Lt.Governor issued another notification dated 27th February,1997 thereby ordering omission of sub-clause (2) of Clause 4 of the notification dated 24th February,1997, which reads as under :- (TO Be Published In PART-IV Of Delhi Gazette - Extraordinary, GOVT. Of N.C.T. Of DELHI) (URBAN Development DEPARTMENT) No.F.11(10)/92-LSG/PF(i) Dtd:27.2.1997 Notification No.F.11(10)/92-LSG/P.F.(i) - The Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi is pleased to make the following amendments in notification No.F.11(10)/92-LSG/PF.(ii) dated the 24th February,1997 issued under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act,1948 (54 of 1948) regarding the constitution of the Delhi Vidyut Board, namely :- In the said notification, in Clause 4 - (a) Sub-Clause (2), shall be omitted; (b) in Sub-clause (3), for the word "other", the word "the" shall be substituted; (c) in sub-clause (5), for the words "corresponding member of the Board", occurring at the end thereof, the words "member(s) of the Board" shall be substituted. By order and in the name of Lt.Governor of the N.C.T. of Delhi, sd/- ( N.C.RAY ) JT.SECRETARY (UD) (5) Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that since the Desu was already in existence, therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Section 511-A and 511-B of D.M.C.Act, the Government decided to re-designate the post of the General Manager, Agm and Finance and Chief Accounts Officer. This was done by the Competent Authority vide notification of 24th February,1997. This the Competent Authority did under the power vested in him. These powers were exercised by the Lt. Governor under section 5 of the Act read with section 511-B(2)(i). Reading of these provisions makes it clear that on transfer of functions, officers and employees of new authority concerned (in this case the Board) would be given such designation as the authority may consider. The authority in this case while issuing the notification of 24th February,1997 exercised that power and designated the top five posts which were held by the erstwhile officials of the DESU. That while redesign ting these five posts the incumbents thereon who were occupying the same automatically occupied the redesignated posts as per clause 4(2) of the notification of 24th February, 1997. Clause 4(2) only dealt with the five top posts in order to make it clear that henceforth the power exercised by them as General Manager and Additional General Managers shall be exercised by them in the redesignated capacity i.e. Chairman and Members. It was in this background that the Competent Authority under clause 4(5) directed that all powers till then being exercised by these five functionaries of Desu would be exercised by them in the corresponding redesignated posts.

(6) That even after the reconstitution of the Board, the number of top posts remained the same. So much so their financial and administrative powers as well as emoluments remained the same. Hence after the notification of 24th February,1997 the incumbents of these five top posts were called by the redesignated names i.e. Chairman and Members Board. Since the posts were redesignated hence the officers who were occupying these posts automatically got redesignated as Chairman and Members. By redesignation of the posts neither the nomenclature changed nor the powers of those five incumbents changed. It has never been the case of the respondent that fresh appointments were made for the Board. Reading of the notification dated 24th February,1997 under sub-section(2)(4) & (5) of Section 5 of the Act would show that the persons who were holding the posts in the erstwhile Desu only got redesignated. The petitioner's name was omitted deliberately as was done earlier when he had to approach to this Court. To substantiate this point Mr.Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate drew my attention to clause 4 of notification dated 24th February,1997, referred to above. There it has specifically been mentioned that 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". After redesignation of the posts the post of General Manager ceased to exist w.e.f. 24th February,1997. Similarly, for the post of A.G.Ms. it was not necessary for the competent authority to issue separate orders of appointment. Notification of 24th February,1997 covered the eventuality stipulated under section 5(2) of the Act. By exercising the powers under Section 5 of the Act, the competent authority included in it the power of appointment on the redesignated posts. Those incumbents who were holding those posts under Desu, no separate appointment order was required to be passed particularly when Notification dated 24th February,1997 was general in nature issued under Section 5 covering all aspects. The conclusion is fortified from the reading of the notification issued under sub-section (2)(4) & (5) of Section 5 of the Act dated 24th February, 1997. A perusal of the same show that no new person was appointed against any of the redesignated posts. Mr.V.K.Duggal who was working as General Manager in Desu was redesignated as Chairman. Similarly, Mr.Y.P.Singh working as A.G.M. in Desu was redesignated as Member Board. Two posts of Member(Technical) and (Administration) were left vacant and on the remaining posts those persons were shown who had been working earlier in DESU. So the reading of the notification clearly establishes that the petitioner had been discriminated. His name was deliberately omitted. No interviews were held nor Selection Board met to consider the appointment of any person against those post nor any record was produced to show otherwise. Mr.Y.P.Singh was shown as Member Board because he was holding the post of Agm in Desu whereas petitioner was deprived of the same without any justification. The respondent not only denied him his right accruing on the basis of the notification under section 5 of the Act but on realising that a legal right had accrued in his favour and in order to deprive him of the same, issued the impugned notification dated 27th February, 1997. By the impugned notification dated 27th February,1997 not only the petitioner has been prejudiced but has been deprived of the benefits accruing from the post of Member. As regard the other incumbent to the post of Agm (Administration), he being a member of Indian Administrative Services and on deputation may not have been interested. Whereas the petitioner was a permanent employee of DESU. He could not have been deprived of his right to be redesignated as Member (Technical). But the respondents for the reason best known to them showed this post as vacant with a rider that the same shall be filled by nomination.

(7) That neither section 511-B of the D.M.C. Act nor Section 5 of the Act give powers to the State Government to nominate any person on the redesignated post. Rule framed and notified in Part-IV of Delhi Gazette-extraordinary of 24th February, 1997 clearly indicate that all financial, administrative and disciplinary powers which vested in the high officials of Desu, namely G.M. and A.G.Ms are to be exercised by the Chairman and Members of the Board respectively. The rules have been framed by the Lt.Governor in exercise of his powers under section 78 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 read with notification dated 24th February, 1997 and in particular clause 4(2) & (5) of that notification a clear picture emerges i.e. the Lt.Governor while exercising his powers under section 5 of the Act or under Section 511B of the Dmc Act did not create any new posts rather as per Section 511-B the five top posts under the Desu were redesigned on the Board when the Board was constituted. Those top officials under the Board are to be called Chairman and Members of the Board. The notification dated 27th February,1997 only omitted sub-clause (2) of clause 4. The State Government did not amend or modify sub-clause (5) of clause 4 of that notification nor amended the rules. Thus the intention of the State Government while issuing the notifications clearly show that it was the post of the Agm which was to be called Member of the Board and that of the General Manager to be Chairman. All the powers which were being exercised in the erstwhile Desu by the General Manager (Electricity), AGMs and financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer were to be exercised by the corresponding Members of the Board.

(11) Further contention of Dr.Singhvi that post of Agm has not been abolished as was done in the case of G.M. That argument is far-fetched. Section 511(b) to (i) of the D.M.C.Act, clearly states that the new authority can redesignate the post. The power to constitute the Board is with the State Government and the State Government while constituting the Board under Section 5 of the Act redesignated the five top posts of Desu, thereby leaving no scope open to doubt that that very post of Agm which was being held by the incumbent became the post of Member in the Board. It would not be correct to say that the post of Agm which was held by the petitioner still continues or by implication did not stand abolished. As already observed above it is a case of redesignation. Therefore, separate specific letter of appointment was not required to be issued. It has already been pointed out while discussing the notification that State Government cannot nominate a Member of the Board. He has to be appointed under Section 5 of the Act. While issuing notification under Section 5 of the Act the State Government may appoint all the persons who were holding those posts on the redesignated posts but for unexplained reasons did not redesignate the petitioner. It is the case of appointment by re-designation. Hence a legal right accrued in favour of the petitioner as on 24th February,1997. It would be wrong on the part of respondent to contend that notification dated 24th February,1997 was only under Section 5(1) of the Act and not under Section 5(2) of the Act. In fact reading of Notification of 24th February,1997 as a whole makes it clear that the Lt.Governor in exercise of his powers under Section 5 of the Act issued the notification. It was not restricted either under Sub Section (1)or(2) of the Act. That is the reason in clause 4(2)itwas mentioned that all those persons who were holding the post of G.M. and A.G.Ms would be redesignated as Chairman and Members of the Board. By saying so the Lt.Governor exercised the powers under Section 5(2) of the Act. The intention of the State Government is clear from the reading of the Notification as a whole. Therefore, it is not correct on the part of respondent to contend that merely because Section 5 of the Act has generally been used in the opening part of the Notification it may not be read that Lt.Governor exercised the powers both under Section 5(1) and 5(2) of the Act. This argument, to my mind, cannot be accepted. It can also not be appreciated that the Lt.Governor did not apply his mind while issuing the notification under Section 5 dated 24th February,1997 as Dr.Singhvi wants this Court to believe or that he properly exercised his mind and then issued amendment vide notification dated 27th February,1997.