NORTH DELHI POWER LIMITED versus GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 5 S.C.R. 1039 · Decided: 03-05-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010) 5 S.C.R. 1039 
NORTH DELHI POWER LIMITED 
v. 
GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & 
ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4269 of 2006) 
MAY 03, 2010 -
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
8 
c 
Re-organization of Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) - Statutory 
transfer scheme - Tripartite agreements between Govt. of 
National Capital Territory of Delhi, DVB and DVB Joint Action 
Committee (consisting of various Unions etc.) -
DVB 
unbundle(} into private companies including appellants-
D 
DISCOMs w.e.f 1-7-2002 -All employees transferred - Plea 
of appellants that they had no liability relating to employees, .. 
who ceased to be employees of the erstwhile Delhi Electric 
Supply Undertaking (predecessor of DVB) prior to 1-7-2002 
on account of their retirement, removal, dismissal or E 
compulsory retirement in accordance with· the provisions of 
the Act - Held: The plea is not tenable - The Rules indicated 
that the liability was innate and accepted by the appellants-
DISCOM S - Appellants, being the transferee companies, 
had taken over the liabilities of the erstwhile staff a/so - Delhi 
F 
Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 - ss. 14, 15, 16, 57 and 60 -
Delhi Electricity Reforms (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001 -
rr.3, 6, 8 and 12. 
· 
From 1-7-2002, Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) was 
unbundled into private companies including the G 
appellants DISCOMs. Another company called DPCL 
(holding company) was also constituted with the aim and 
object of holding shares in the DISCOMs. 
1039 
H 
1040 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Since the employees of DVB had displayed their 
apprehension and reservations to the effect that on 
emergence of the private companies their services may 
not be protected, therefore, these employees were taken 
into confidence by assuring them that their services will 
B be protected by entering into Tripartite Agreements 
which were executed between Government of National 
Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), DVB and DVB Joint 
Action Committee (which consisted of various Unions as 
well as Junior Engineer Officer Association). 
C 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
present appeals was whether the appellants DISCOMs 
are responsible for meeting the liabilities relating to 
employees, who ceased to be the employees of the 
erstwhile Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (predecessor 
D of DVB) prior to 1-7-2002 on account of their retirement, 
removal, dismissal or compulsory retirement in 
accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Electricity 
Reforms Act, 2000. 
E 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is difficult to accept the contention that 
any prejudice was caused to the appellants DISCOMS. 
On the other hand, the question of liability seems to have 
been thrashed very minutely by the High Court in the light 
F of the provisions of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 
2000, the Delhi Electricity Reforms (Transfer Scheme) 
Rules, 2001, Tripartite Agreements and the other 
agreements including the bid documents. It cannot be 
said that clothing appellant-NDPL with a liability regarding 
G the personnel who were retired, compulsorily retired or 
otherwise dead, dismissed etc. could be termed 'as 
"additional liability". In fact the reading of the said Rules 
and, more particularly, Rule 6(8) would indicate that 
liability was innate and accepted by the DISCOMS. [Paras 
H 21 and 23] [1065-E-F; 1066-C] 
NORTH DELHI POWER LIMITED v. GOVT. OF NCT &1041 
ORS. 
2. Rule 6(8) not only specifies the employment A 
related matters but also clarifies what those matter~ 
would be which include pension and any superannuation 
fund or special fund created or existing for the benefit of 
the personnel and the existing pensioners. The words 
'existing pensioners' are extremely important. A plain 
B 
reading of this Rule would leave no manner of doubt in 
respect of the liability having been transferred to 
transferee company and the NDPL is certainly the one. 
The language is broad enough to include all dismissed, 
dead, retired and compuisorily retired employees. As if c 
that was not sufficient, sub-Rule (9) requires the 
Government to make appropriate arrangements in terms 
of the Tripartite Agreements in regard to the fund of 
terminal benefits to the extent it is unfunded on the date 
of transfer from the Board. A glance at the sub-rules 9(a) 
D 
and 9(b) is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the 
liabilities have undoubtedly been transfarred to th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.