High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 05 DEL CK 0089

RAJ KUMAR HANDA & ORS vs TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD .

Delhi High Court · Decided on 9 May 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
SUNIL GAUR
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
CRL.M.C. 1589 OF 2018 & Crl. M.A. 5767 OF 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 302 words
1.

Petitioners are ex-Delhi Vidyut Board employees, who upon unbundling of Delhi Vidyut Board, had become employees of first respondent. In this

petition, a direction is sought to first respondent to refix the revised pay of petitioners with effect from 1st January, 2006 by granting the benefit of

bunching as per Rule 7(1)(A)(ii) of the DTL (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 read with Office Order No. DLT/1010/HR (G)/ 146 dated 29th August,

2016, as computed vide Annexure P-H in respect of first three petitioners and vide Annexure-I in respect of petitioner’s No. 4 and 5 and to

grant all consequential benefits thereof to petitioners.

2.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that to claim the relief as sought in this petition, a Representation (Annexure-G colly.) was made by

petitioners to first respondent, but according to petitioners’ counsel, there is no response to the said Representation made by petitioners.

3.

Learned counsel for first respondent raises an objection regarding maintainability of this petition, which is sought to be refuted by petitioners’

counsel while relying upon Office Order of 29th December, 2009 (Annexure-E) of first respondent.

4.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to leave the question of maintainability of this petition open, as this Court is

not deciding this petition on merits. The least, which is required to be done by first respondent, is to give a speaking response to petitioners’

Representation (Annexure-G colly.) in light of the Office Order of 21st December, 2009 (Annexure-A). Let the needful be done within a period of

eight weeks from today and the fate of said Representation be conveyed to petitioners within two weeks thereafter, so that petitioners may avail of

the remedies as available in law, if need be. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.