*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(C) 3474/2015, CM No.6207/2015

MUKUL MISHRA

..... Petitioner

Through:

In person

Versus

DELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION &

ORS

..... Respondent

Through:

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

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO

V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the

following reliefs:-

2015:DHC:10502

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

2015:DHC:10502

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

2015:DHC:10502

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 Advisor (Law) by 5%.

According to him, absence of Rules has led to lack of transparency. He

states, that the provision of clause 17 of the Regulations, 2003 provides

that Commission shall provide the staff to the Ombudsman. He would

state, that the case of the respondents that the notification dated February

16, 2015 is not applicable to the respondent or to the office of