J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):

1. This regular second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) impugns the judgment dated 03.06.2022 passed by the SCJ – cum – RC, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (‘First Appellate Court’) in RCA SCJ No. 6/2021, titled as ‘Balbir Singh v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.’, whereby the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant herein i.e., the plaintiff, against the judgment dated 19.11.2018 passed by the ACJ/CCJ/ARC, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (‘Trial Court’) in civil suit bearing CS No. 833/2017.

1.1. The Trial Court had vide judgment dated 19.11.2018 held that the suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of Section 9 of CPC and Section 14 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; and consequently, rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

1.2. The Appellant is the plaintiff and the Respondent is the defendant. For ease of reference, the parties are being referred to by their original rank and status as was before the Trial Court.

1.3. The plaintiff who is presently an employee of the defendant, was earlier an employee of Delhi Vidyut Board (‘DVB’). Subsequently, on account of the unbundling of the DVB to various private distribution companies (‘DISCOMS’), the Petitioner was transferred to one such DISCOM being the defendant herein.

2. A tripartite agreement as well was executed between the GNCTD, DVB and Joint Action Committee of workers, supervisors, engineers and officers of Delhi Vidyut Board (‘Employees Association’), wherein as per clause 3 (b), the employees transferred from DVB continue to be governed and regulated by existing rules and regulations as were applicable to DVB employees, which for the purpose of deciding this appeal are CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (‘CCS Rules’) and Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [‘CCS (CCA) Rules’], collectively referred to as (‘service rules’)

Submissions of the counsel for parties

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant i.e., the plaintiff, states that since the plaintiff has ceased to be a Government servant, the invocation of Rule 5 of CCS Rules, which is only applicable to ‘Government servant’, by the defendant was illegal.

3.1. He states that the status of the plaintiff has ceased to be that of a Government servant upon his appointment as an employee with the defendant. He states that the CCS Rules are only intended to regulate the service conditions of the plaintiff; however, the plaintiff has ceased to be a government employee and therefore, the embargo of Rule 5 of the CCS Rules will not apply to the plaintiff. In this regard, he relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in Ashok Kumar Raswant v. CBI1.

4. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent i.e., defendant, states that this Court in Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta v. GNCTD2 has held that in pursuance to a tripartite agreement dated 09.11.2000 entered into between GNCTD, DVB and the Employee’s Association, since it was agreed that service conditions of employees of DVB will not be changed to their detriment; hence, departmental proceedings are to be initiated, continued and concluded under the CCS(CCA) Rules which stand adopted by the private employer i.e., the defendant.

4.1. He states that this Court in Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta (supra) held that the said Rules shall apply mutatis mutandis to the employees such as the plaintiff herein for the purpose of conducting an inquiry. He states that the said judgment has been upheld up till the Supreme Court (LPA No. 93/2015 dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2015 and the SLP No. 8795/2015 dismissed vide order dated 30.03.2015).

1 2009 SCC OnLine Del 215 2 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6898

4.2. He further states that in the interregnum the inquiry initiated by the defendant in pursuance to the show cause notice dated 26.04.2017 stands concluded. He states that in the