The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of the government order allocating an employee to a new entity and the impact of the delay in reporting for duty on the employee's right to seek absorption are crucial factors in determining the employee's entitlements and limitations.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby WP (C) No. 4415/2003 filed by Respondent No. 1 has been allowed and the impugned office order relieving the petitioner employee to join the respondent NDPL for absorption quashed. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition may be summarised as under :-

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 was employed with the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board as a Junior Work Mistry on work charge basis for a period of six months. That period was extended from time to time and according to the appellants, the last of these extensions was up to 4th January, 2004, although no formal order to that effect has been placed on record.

( 3 ) CONSEQUENT upon the enactment of Delhi Electricity Reform Act, 2000, the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board was wound up to be replaced by six new entities, namely, Delhi Power Supply Company Ltd. (TRANSCO), Indraprastha Power generation Company Ltd. (GENCO), Central-East Delhi Electricity Distribution company Ltd. (DISCOM 1), South-West Delhi Electricity Distribution Company limited (DISCOM 2), North-West Delhi Distribution Company Limited (DISCOM 3) and delhi Power Company Limited. The staff working with the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut board was to stand allocated and absorbed in the new entities in terms of Delhi electricity Reforms (Transfer Schemes) Rules, 2001. Rule 6 of the said Rules, inter alia, provided that with effect from the date of transfer, the personnel working in the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board would stand transferred to and absorbed in GENCO, TRANSCO and DISCOMS as the case may be in accordance with a government order dated 15th November, 2001.

( 4 ) IN terms of Rule 9 of the Rules aforementioned, the Government was competent to amend or vary the terms and conditions of such transfer within a period of three months from the date of transfer. This meant that the government could exercise the said power only up to 30th September, 2002. That is precisely what the Government did in terms of an order dated 30th September, 2002 which incidently was the last date on which the power of amendment could be exercised. By the said order, the Government removed certain discrepancies and anomalies in the matter of allocation of the employees of the erstwhile DVB to the new entities. Annexure-5 to the said order enlisted the names of employees being absorbed in the new entities. Respondent No. 1 figured at Sl. No. 13 in the said list for absorption in Respondent No. 2, the Company created for the North west Region.

( 5 ) IT is common ground that Respondent No. 1 was not relieved from the place of his posting to report to Respondent No. 2 for absorption. The result was that he was not taken on rolls by the said respondent. He continued to work in Indraprastha Power Generation Limited and Pragati Power Corporation Limited till 18th June, 2003 when he was eventually relieved of his charge with a direction to report to Respondent No. 2, NDPL. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed WP (C) No. 4415/2003 in this Court, inter alia, for a writ of certiorari quashing the said order and a mandamus directing the appellants herein to continue him on duty. The petition was contested by the appellants herein, among others, on the ground that the petitioner had already been allocated to Respondent NDPL in terms of Government Order dated 30th September, 2002 in the light whereof the petitioner could work only with NDPL for which purpose he stood relieved from his duties on 19th June, 2003. A counter affidavit was filed by the NDPL also which was subsequently added as a party respondent to the said petition, inter alia, pointing out that the petitioner had not reported to the said Company nor was he working in the area allotted to it. It was further asserted that the dispute relating to the petitioner s services or and continuance, could be agitated only under the Industrial disputes Act, 1947.

( 6 ) VIKRAMAJIT S