Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 3096
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.
MUKUL MISHRA - Petitioner
Versus
DELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & ORS - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3474/2015, CM No.6207/2015
Decided on : 23.12.2015
Mr. Meet Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Pratima Gupta and Ms.Palak Singh, Advocates for R-1 & R-2
Mr. Vinod Kumar Bhati, Adv. for Mr. Devesh Singh, Adv. for R-3
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment was made on a contractual basis, and the petitioner had accepted the terms without protest. The court also emphasized the distinction between the staff of the Ombudsman and the Commission, highlighting the contractual nature of the appointment.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Appointment Dispute - Electricity Act, 2003, Regulations, 2003 - The court discussed the appointment dispute regarding the position of Advisor (Law) at the office of the Electricity Ombudsman. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to continue working on the post until a final view was taken by the Government of NCT of Delhi. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the appointment was made on a contractual basis and the petitioner had accepted the terms without protest. The court also highlighted the distinction between the staff of the Ombudsman and the Commission, emphasizing the contractual nature of the appointment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to continue working as Advisor (Law) at the office of the Electricity Ombudsman until a final view was taken by the Government of NCT of Delhi. The petitioner had been appointed for a period of three years, and his appointment was extended for an additional 60 days. The petitioner challenged the appointment process for a second term and the applicability of a notification dated February 16, 2015.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment was made on a contractual basis, and the petitioner had accepted the terms without protest. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the appointment was made on a contractual basis and the petitioner had accepted the terms without protest. The court also highlighted the distinction between the staff of the Ombudsman and the Commission, emphasizing the contractual nature of the appointment.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of a notification dated February 16, 2015, the nature of the appointment as Advisor (Law), and the distinction between the staff of the Ombudsman and the Commission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointment was made on a contractual basis, and the petitioner had accepted the terms without protest. The court also emphasized the distinction between the staff of the Ombudsman and the Commission, highlighting the contractual nature of the appointment.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. No costs were awarded.
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
a) issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/direction/orders and further order/orders to the effect that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall permit the petitioner to work on the present post of Advisor (Law) at office of respondent No.2 on present terms and conditions and salary until the respondent No.3 takes a final view on its notification No.F-19(01)2014/S-IV/223-224 dated 16.02.2015. Secondly he may kindly be allowed to work on the present post till continuation of the scheme, whichever lasts later.
b) direct the respondent Nos.1 & 2 not to take any action/shall withdraw any action already taken on the basis of interviews (personal interaction) dated 30.03.2015 until final view is taken by the respondent No.3 on its notification;
c) direct the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to take action consistent to final view taken by respondent No.3 regarding notification dated 16.02.2015;
d) Any other order(s) as may be deemed fit and appropriate may also kindly be passed.”
2. Meaningfully read, the relief is primarily for a direction to permit the petitioner to work on the post of Advisor (Law) at the office of respondent No.2 i.e Electricity Ombudsman on present terms, conditions and salary on which he was initially appointed until respondent No.3 Government of NCT of Delhi takes a final view on the notification dated February 16, 2015 whereby it was decided by the Govt. of NCT, not to terminate the services of the contractual employees engaged by the departments till further instructions in the matter. It is also prayed that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 not to take any action on the basis of interview held on March 30, 2015 for the post of Advisor (Law).
3. Mr. Mukul Mishra, petitioner appeared in person and would submit that he was appointed as Advisor (Law) on February 10, 2012 in the office of the Electricity Ombudsman. According to him, the said appointment was for a period of three years. The petitioner has been discharging duties to the best of his ability. As the term of the appointment was coming to an end on February 12, 2015, the respondent No.1 was supposed to start the process for reappointment/fresh appointment, six months prior to the date on which the term was to expire. The respondent No.1 advertised two posts of (i) Secretary and (ii) Advisor (Law) on December 11, 2014. The petitioner was also eligible for a second term being 54 years of age and his work and conduct was found excellent during the initial period of three years of appointment. He also applied for the post of Advisor (Law) for the second term. As the process of interview could not take place before the tenure of the petitioner was due to expire on February 12, 2015, the appointment of the petitioner was extended to a further period of 60 days i.e. up to April 13, 2015. It is his case that on February 16, 2015, the Govt. of NCT issued notification to the effect, if any terminations, are likely to take place, the same shall be stopped till further orders. The petitioner’s case is that, he had made a representation dated March 26, 2015 to extend his services in terms of the notification dated February 16, 2015, till further orders. He also states, that he appeared in the personal interaction, held on March 30, 2015. No reply to the said representation dated March 26, 2015 was ever received by the petitioner. He concedes to the fact that the respondent No.1 had not notified Recruitment Rules for various posts under respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 is engaging officers on contractual basis. He would also submit, that the respondent could not have replaced a contractual employee by a further contractual employee by appointing a new Advisor (Law). That apart, it is his endeavour to submit that there is no concluded contract between the petitioner and the respondents, inasmuch as after every year, there is an increase in the pay of the Adviso
