Dr. Kunda Mendhekar vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (Tpddl)And Ors

$~83
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
Date of Decision: 02 September, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010238772026
+ W.P.(C) 7368/2026 & CM APPL. 57218/2026
DR. KUNDA MENDHEKAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Asija, Advocate with
Petitioner in person.
versus
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED (TPDDL)AND
ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Sujit Kumar
Singh, Ms. Ankita Singh, Mr.
Abhishek, Mr. Amit Singh,
Advocates for R-1.
Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC for R-2 & 3
with Mrs. Tania Ahlawat, Mr. N.K.
Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr.
Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates for R-
2 & 3.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):
1. The Petitioner has been made to retire at 60. She says that was five
years too early. Her case is that she entered Tata Power Delhi Distribution
Ltd. [“TPDDL”] as a transferred Delhi Vidyut Board [“DVB”] doctor,
remained subject to the protected FR/SR service framework, and was
therefore entitled to the later enhancement of doctors’ retirement age to 65.
TPDDL says the protection did not go that far. It preserved existing service
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 1 of 30

conditions; it did not bind TPDDL to every later Government change unless
TPDDL chose to adopt it. The dispute, therefore, is less about continuity of
service and more about what that continuity legally carried with it.
Factual Background
2. The Petitioner entered service in the Delhi power establishment in
1996. She was selected through the Union Public Service Commission
[“UPSC”] for appointment as a Medical Officer in the Delhi Electric Supply
th
Undertaking [“DESU”] and joined service on 10 April, 1996. DESU was
subsequently subsumed into DVB.
3. When DVB was proposed to be restructured, its employees were
apprehensive that the change might affect their employment and service
conditions. Those apprehensions were expressly recorded in the Tripartite
th
Agreement dated 28 October, 2000 between the GNCTD, DVB and the
Joint Action Committee representing the employees. The Agreement records
that it was intended to allay those fears and facilitate the smooth
implementation of the restructuring.
4. Clause 3(b) specifically addressed the terms and conditions of service
applicable to employees upon their transfer to the new entities:
“The terms and conditions of service upon transfer to the corporate
entities…regulated by existing regulations/service rules e.g. FR/SR will be
guaranteed to continue the same…”

5. It added that any modifications were to be made through mutual
negotiation and settlement with the recognised unions and associations,
without reducing existing benefits. Clause 3(f) separately protected all
benefits arising from the service rendered by employees in DVB.
6. The statutory transfer followed. Section 16(2) of the Delhi Electricity
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 2 of 30

Reform Act, 2000 [“Reform Act”] required that the terms and conditions of
service in the transferee company should not be less favourable than those
applicable immediately before transfer; continuity of service and benefits of
service accrued before the transfer were also protected. Rule 6(7) of the
Delhi Electricity Reform (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001 [“Transfer Scheme
Rules”] permitted the transferee to frame its own service regulations, but
until then, the existing service conditions of DVB were to continue mutatis
mutandis . Rule 6(6), at the same time, provided that the transferred
employee would cease to be in the service of DVB.
7. The Petitioner’s services were transferred to North Delhi Power Ltd.
[“NDPL”], which subsequently became TPDDL. She continued there for
st
more than two decades. Her most recent promotion was with effect from 1
July, 2025, when TPDDL elevated her to Senior General Manager
(Medical). The promotion letter itself stated that she would be entitled to one
special increment equivalent to one annual increment on her current Basic
Pay in the existing Pay Level in the “FRSR pay structure”.
8. The issue that ultimately gave rise to the present dispute traces its
st
origin to a Government of India order dated 31 May, 2016. It provided:
“The President is pleased to enhance the age of superannuation of the
specialists of Non-Teaching and Public Health sub-cadres of Central
Health Service (CHS) and General Duty Medical Officers of CHS to 65
years with immediate effect.”

The order further requested the Department of Personnel and Training to
make the necessary amendments in FR 56.
th
9. Thereafter, on 30 September, 2016, the GNCTD issued a similar
order in respect of doctors of the Delhi Health Service:
“The Lieutenant Governor of GNCT of Delhi is pleased to enhance the
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 3 of 30

age of superannuation of the Specialists of Non-Teaching sub-cadre of
Delhi Health Service (DHS) and General Duty Medical Officers of DHS to
65 years with immediate effect.”

10. The successor companies did not all respond to the 2016 development
in the same way. Delhi Transco Ltd. [“DTL”] placed the issue before its
nd
Board of Directors. On 22 March, 2017, the Board specifically approved
the enhancement of the age of superannuation of its regular Medical Officers
th
to 65 years. The Office Order dated 13 April, 2017 recorded that decision
in these terms:
“…the approval of the Board be and is hereby accorded for the
enhancement of the age of superannuation of regular Medical Officers
posted in Delhi Transco Limited to 65 years.”

It concluded that, henceforth, regular Medical Officers in DTL would
superannuate at 65.
11. Indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd. [“IPGCL”] and Pragati
Power Co. Ltd. [“PPCL”] followed in 2018. The Board of Directors of
th
IPGCL and PPCL, in its meeting held on 17 July, 2018, approved the
enhancement of the age of superannuation of regular Medical Officers from
st
60 to 65 years. The Circular dated 31 July, 2018 expressly records that the
decision was taken “in line with” the amendment made by the Government
of India and its adoption by the GNCTD.
12. The Petitioner, perhaps sensing that she was going to be retired
earlier, began writing to TPDDL. The record contains communications from
2016 onwards, right up until 2026, seeking that her age of superannuation be
updated in her service records. After the DTL order, she repeatedly enclosed
that order as well in her representations.
13. By March 2026, the Petitioner had put the matter squarely. She asked
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 4 of 30

TPDDL to bring her age of superannuation in line with the Government
decision and the orders issued by DTL and IPGCL. She also pointed to the
arrangement under which medical officers could hold administrative posts
up to 62 and, thereafter, continue in non-administrative positions up to 65.
th
14. TPDDL did not accept the request. On 24 April, 2026, it informed
st
the Petitioner that she would attain the age of superannuation on 31 May,
2026 and asked her to submit the pension and terminal-formality documents.
15. The Petitioner objected and asked TPDDL to identify the rule under
th
which it proposed to retire her at 60. In its reply dated 4 May, 2026,
TPDDL accepted that her service conditions continued to be governed by
the framework arising from the restructuring, including the Reform Act, the
Transfer Scheme Rules and the Tripartite Agreement. It maintained,
however, that those arrangements did not alter the applicable age of
superannuation of 60 years. TPDDL added that the amendment to FR 56
applied only to specified services or posts; subsequent Government
amendments did not automatically extend to TPDDL; and the decisions of
DTL and IPGCL did not bind it.
th
16. TPDDL also wrote to the DVB Pension Trust on 5 May, 2026. It
st
stated that the Petitioner was due to superannuate on 31 May, 2026 at the
age of 60 and that her request for enhancement of the age of superannuation
to 65 had not been accepted. TPDDL sought the Trust’s clarification on
whether the Petitioner would be eligible for pension upon retirement at 60.
17. The Trust took a different view. Based on legal opinion, it informed
TPDDL that transferred DVB doctors were entitled to the enhanced age and
concluded that “TPPDL cannot retire a doctor on attaining the age of 60
years”. It asked TPDDL to consider implementing the Tripartite Agreement
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 5 of 30

and FR 56 on that basis.
18. The Petitioner approached this Court before she was relieved from
th
service. On 25 May, 2026, this Court declined interim continuation, noting
that the issue required detailed consideration and that permitting her to
continue would, at that stage, substantially grant the final relief. It was also
observed that, if the Petitioner ultimately succeeded, continuity of service,
monetary benefits and other attendant service benefits could be addressed at
the final stage.
19. TPDDL thereafter relieved the Petitioner from service on the
st
afternoon of 31 May, 2026, on her attaining the age which it treated as the
age of superannuation.
20. The disagreement over the retirement date then travelled into the
pension process as well. The Pension Trust returned the pension folder,
recording that it could administer and disburse pensionary benefits only on
the basis of a valid and undisputed retirement and that, with the
superannuation date under challenge before this Court, processing or release
of pension could prejudice the rights of the parties. That is how the matter
now stands: TPDDL treats the Petitioner as having retired at 60; the
Petitioner says the protected service framework carried a later enhancement
with it; and the Pension Trust has returned the pension folder pending the
outcome of these proceedings.
Submissions
21. Mr. Rajat Asija, counsel for the Petitioner, begins the Petitioner’s case
with the manner in which she came to be in TPDDL. She was not recruited
by TPDDL. She entered DESU through a UPSC selection in 1996, thereafter
served in DVB and, upon unbundling, was transferred to TPDDL under a
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 6 of 30

statutory arrangement which expressly protected the service conditions of
the employees being transferred. The Tripartite Agreement, he submits, is
therefore not merely incidental to her employment with TPDDL; it formed
part of the very arrangement under which her service came to be transferred.
22. He places particular emphasis on Clause 3(b) of the Tripartite
Agreement. The assurance given to the transferred employees was that their
conditions of service, then regulated by rules such as FR/SR, would “be
guaranteed to continue the same”. Mr. Asija submits that this preserved a
continuing service structure, not merely the FR/SR provisions as they stood
on the date of transfer. The Petitioner remained within that structure
throughout her service with TPDDL. Even the promotion order issued in
July 2025 records her pay in the “FRSR pay structure”. He also relies upon
TPDDL’s subsequent extension of revisions in pay, allowances, DACP and
other service benefits to contend that TPDDL itself did not treat the transfer
as severing the Petitioner from later Government-linked changes.
st
23. Mr. Asija then turns to the Government orders of 2016. On 31 May,
2016, the Central Government enhanced the age of superannuation of
specified categories of CHS doctors to 65 years; the GNCTD followed on
th
30 September, 2016 in respect of corresponding categories in the Delhi
Health Service. His submission is that, once the Petitioner continued to be
governed by the FRSR structure after her transfer, a subsequent change in
the retirement regime could not be denied to her merely because she had, by
then, been allocated to TPDDL.
24. He draws further support from the manner in which the other DVB
successor companies dealt with the same change. DTL enhanced the
retirement age of its Medical Officers in 2017, followed by IPGCL and
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 7 of 30

PPCL in 2018. Mr. Asija points out that these employees came from the
same parent organisation, were transferred under the same statutory scheme
and carried the protection of the same Tripartite Agreement. On that basis,
he contends that a doctor transferred to TPDDL could not be placed at a
disadvantage, in the matter of retirement age, when compared with another
doctor transferred from DVB to one of the other successor companies.
25. Mr. Asija also relies upon TPDDL’s own conduct after unbundling.
He points not to an isolated instance, but to a course of treatment extending
over several years in which Central Pay Commission revisions,
Government-pattern allowances, DACP and other service benefits were
extended to transferred employees who continued within the FRSR
structure. According to him, TPDDL cannot regard that structure as
continuing when later Government changes enhance pay or other benefits,
but treat it as having ceased to operate when the change concerns the age of
retirement.
1
26. Sushil Kumar Khanna v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. is invoked in
support of the parity argument. Mr. Asija points out that this Court had
extended to a transferred employee the benefit of the Time Bound
Promotion Scheme after noticing the treatment given to similarly placed
DVB employees in DTL. He says the decision recognises that allocation
among successor companies cannot, without reason, fracture rights which
arose from a common DVB service structure.
th
27. The order dated 13 August, 2008 in DVB Engineers Assn. v. Lt.
2
Governor of Delhi & Ors. gives the argument another dimension. Counsel

1 st
W.P.(C) 6203/2013, decided on 31 August, 2017 (Delhi High Court).
2 th
W.P.(C) 5875/2008, order dated 13 August, 2008 (Delhi High Court).
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 8 of 30

for the private DISCOMs had stated before this Court that they would
extend “all the benefits at par” with those given to erstwhile DVB
employees in the transmission, generation and holding companies, and that
the service conditions of the transferred employees would remain governed
by the Tripartite Agreement, FRSR structure, CCS Rules and the Transfer
Scheme Rules. Mr. Asija relies upon the breadth of that statement and says
TPDDL cannot now contend that parity ended with the particular wage
revision which led to those proceedings.
28. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC for Respondents No. 2 and 3, appearing for
the DVB Pension Trust, supports the Petitioner on the principal issue. She
too reads the Tripartite Agreement as providing continuing protection to the
transferred employees. Her submission is that employees who were
allocated among the successor entities as part of the restructuring cannot
have the extent of that protection depend upon whether the entity to which
they were transferred is Government-owned or privately managed. She
relies upon their common origin in DVB, the common statutory arrangement
under which the transfers took place, and the continued extension of
Government-linked benefits after unbundling.
29. Ms. Ahlawat also points to the pensionary consequence of TPDDL’s
stand. The Pension Trust, which administers the terminal benefits of
transferred DVB employees, obtained legal advice and took the view that a
transferred doctor could not be retired by TPDDL at 60 once the enhanced
retirement age became applicable. Its communication to TPDDL records
that position in express terms. According to Ms. Ahlawat, TPDDL’s
construction therefore produces an anomalous situation: TPDDL treats the
Petitioner as having retired, while the Pension Trust does not accept 60 as
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 9 of 30

the age at which her pension becomes payable.
30. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
TPDDL, begins with the scope of the protection itself. He accepts that the
Tripartite Agreement protected the transferred employees, but disputes the
meaning which the Petitioner places upon that protection. Clause 3(b), he
states, preserved the service conditions applicable to an employee
immediately before transfer to the transferee company, while Clause 3(f)
protects the benefits of service rendered “as on the date of restructuring”.
Section 16(2) of the Reform Act and Rule 6(7) of the Transfer Scheme
Rules similarly refer to the conditions applicable “immediately before the
transfer”. None of these provisions, according to him, requires every
subsequent Government amendment to be automatically incorporated into
the service conditions of each successor company.
31. On that basis, Mr. Nandrajog states that TPDDL did not reduce the
Petitioner’s retirement age. It was 60 when she was transferred and
continued to be 60 thereafter. What she now seeks is an enhancement to 65.
Such an enhancement must have an independent legal source.
32. He relies, in this context, upon the manner in which DTL, IPGCL and
PPCL themselves dealt with the 2016 Government decision. DTL placed the
matter before its Board, which specifically approved enhancement of the
retirement age of its Medical Officers to 65. IPGCL and PPCL followed the
same course through decisions of their Board. Mr. Nandrajog submits that
these documents show conscious adoption by the individual companies
rather than automatic application of the Government decision. TPDDL took
no corresponding decision.
33. Mr. Nandrajog also disputes the Petitioner’s direct reliance upon the
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 10 of 30

st
Government orders and FR 56. The Central Government order dated 31
May, 2016 applies to specified categories of doctors in CHS, while the
GNCTD order concerns specified categories in DHS. FR 56(bb) likewise
identifies the medical services to which the special retirement arrangement
applies. The Petitioner, he submits, belongs to none of those services. Her
selection through UPSC did not make her a CHS or DHS officer, and her
service after the statutory transfer was with TPDDL.
34. He then relies upon Rajeev Kumar Garg v. BSES Rajdhani Power
3 4
Ltd. , Mamta v. Delhi Transco Ltd. & Anr. and Anju Koshal v. GNCTD &
5
Ors. to answer the broader proposition advanced by the Petitioner regarding
the automatic application of the Government decisions. He argues that the
fact that the Government rules formed part of the service conditions
inherited from DVB does not mean that every amendment made by
Government after unbundling automatically becomes a condition of service
in the successor organisation. A subsequent amendment must be adopted by
the successor employer before it can operate there.
35. Mr. Nandrajog also relies upon Vice Chairman, DDA v. Narender
6
Kumar & Ors . He submits that even an autonomous public body which
follows Central Government patterns in matters of pay and service benefits
does not become bound by every subsequent Government decision without
adoption by its competent authority. That principle, according to him, makes
the Petitioner’s case for automatic incorporation still more difficult.
36. Mr. Nandrajog then turns to the order passed in DVB Engineers Assn.

3 th
W.P.(C) 1828/2013, order dated 20 March, 2013 (Delhi High Court).
4 th
W.P.(C) 4437/2014, order dated 26 October, 2018 (Delhi High Court).
5 th
W.P.(C) 12243/2019, order dated 29 April, 2025 (Delhi High Court).
6
(2022) 11 SCC 641.
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 11 of 30

He does not dispute the terms of the statement recorded there, but states that
they must be understood in the proceedings in which they were made. DVB
Engineers Assn. concerned the Wage Revision Committee constituted for
erstwhile DVB employees in the transmission, generation and holding
companies, from which employees transferred to the private DISCOMs had
been left out. The relief sought was extension of the Committee’s interim
and final recommendations to those employees. The order records the
statement made on behalf of the DISCOMs and concludes with the
assurance that the recommendations of the Wage Revision Committee
would also be extended to their transferred employees.
37. Mr. Nandrajog places Clause 3(c) of the Tripartite Agreement
alongside that order. The clause separately deals with wage negotiations and
continues the existing system of bipartite negotiations. He therefore reads
DVB Engineers Assn. in the context of wage revision. His submission is that
a statement made in those proceedings cannot be enlarged into a continuing
undertaking that every future service decision taken by DTL, including one
concerning retirement age, would automatically alter the service conditions
in TPDDL.
38. When the Court drew the attention of the parties to the 2015
Appellate Tribunal for Electricity [“APTEL”] decision in Tata Power Delhi
7
Distribution Ltd. v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission , Mr.
Nandrajog maintained the same distinction. He accepted that TPDDL had
itself relied upon DVB Engineers Assn. before APTEL, and that APTEL
held TPDDL bound to extend the enhanced food allowance and Children
Education Allowance available to DTL employees, with the corresponding
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 12 of 30

expenditure being recognised for tariff purposes. He distinguishes the
decision on the nature of the benefits involved. Both concerned pay and
allowances. APTEL was not deciding whether a subsequent decision of DTL
altering the tenure or retirement age of its employees would, without
adoption, also bind TPDDL.
39. Mr. Nandrajog also points to the relief sought in the writ petition. The
first prayer asks the Court to direct TPDDL to implement the 2016
Government decision and enhance the Petitioner’s retirement age.
According to him, there is no existing rule of TPDDL fixing her retirement
age at 65 which the Court is being asked to enforce. The relief would instead
require TPDDL to give effect to a later change which it has never adopted.
A writ of mandamus, he submits, can enforce an existing legal obligation; it
cannot substitute the Court’s decision for an act of adoption which the
employer has declined to undertake.
40. On the position taken by the Pension Trust, Mr. Nandrajog submits
that its role follows the lawful date of retirement; it does not determine that
date. If the Petitioner was lawfully retired at 60, the Trust would have to
process her pension on that basis. Its contrary view on the age of
superannuation cannot, according to him, determine the tenure of an
employee of TPDDL.
41. TPDDL has also raised an objection to the maintainability of the writ
petition against it as a private distribution company. Mr. Nandrajog,
however, did not insist upon a decision on that objection once the parties
had been heard at length on the substantive issue. He left the objection open
and invited the Court to decide the claim on merits.

7 th
Appeal No. 171/2012, decision dated 10 February, 2015 (APTEL).
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 13 of 30

Issues for Determination
42. The controversy, in the opinion of this Court, raises four questions for
determination:
(i) Whether the protection afforded to the Petitioner under Section 16 of
the Reform Act, the Transfer Scheme Rules and the Tripartite Agreement
preserved the service conditions applicable at the time of transfer, or also
carried into TPDDL subsequent amendments to FR/SR without any further
act of adoption.
(ii) Whether the Government decisions of 2016 and the subsequent
amendment of FR 56 applied to the Petitioner, and what significance
attaches to the fact that DTL, IPGCL and PPCL enhanced the retirement age
of their Medical Officers through decisions of their Boards.
(iii) Whether DVB Engineers Assn. , read with the later decision of APTEL
in Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. v. DERC and TPDDL’s own
extension of Government-linked service benefits, created a continuing
obligation upon TPDDL to maintain parity with the other DVB successor
companies in the matter of retirement age.
(iv) If no existing service condition entitled the Petitioner to continue in
service until the age of 65, whether the Court could nevertheless direct
TPDDL, by a writ of mandamus, to enhance her age of superannuation.
Analysis
Service Conditions Carried into TPDDL
43. When DVB was unbundled, its employees were not leaving one
employer and entering the service of another by choice. Their services were
transferred under a statutory scheme. The safeguards attached to that transfer
must therefore be read as substantive protections. Section 16(2) of the
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 14 of 30

Reform Act ensured that the conditions in the transferee company would not
be less favourable than those applicable immediately before the transfer.
Rule 6(7) of the Transfer Scheme Rules proceeded on the same basis and,
until the transferee framed regulations of its own, continued the existing
DVB service conditions mutatis mutandis . The Tripartite Agreement added
a further assurance: conditions governed by the existing regulations and
service rules, including FR/SR, would continue, while past service and
accrued benefits would remain protected.
44. Those protections must be given their full effect. TPDDL could not,
by reason of the restructuring, disregard the Petitioner’s past service or place
her on terms inferior to those protected at the time of transfer in respect of
pay, pensionary rights or other conditions of service.
45. The present claim, however, requires something further. It proceeds
on the footing that once FR/SR continued to govern the transferred
employee, every beneficial amendment made to those rules thereafter also
became part of her service conditions in TPDDL without any further act of
adoption. The Court is unable to read the governing instruments that way.
46. Section 16(2) fixes the comparison with the conditions applicable
“immediately before the transfer”. Rule 6(7) of the Transfer Scheme Rules
uses the same point of reference. Clause 3(f) protects the benefits of service
rendered “as on the date of restructuring”, while Clause 3(b) speaks of the
“existing regulations/service rules”. Each of these provisions therefore
begins with the service position at the time of transfer. They protect that
position against diminution; none says that TPDDL would thereafter remain
bound by every amendment which Government might make to any rule
forming part of that service structure.
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 15 of 30

47. Mr. Asija’s answer to this has some force. FR/SR could not sensibly
have meant a static version of those rules frozen on the date of transfer.
TPDDL itself continued to give effect to later pay revisions and other
Government-linked benefits. The Petitioner’s service record therefore does
not support the suggestion that her connection with the FRSR structure
ended in 2002.
48. That, however, does not resolve the present question. Continuation of
the FRSR structure and automatic incorporation of every subsequent
amendment within that structure are different propositions. The record
supports the former. The latter must still be found in the instruments
governing the transfer.
49. Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences & Anr. v.
8
Bikartan Das & Anr. is instructive in this regard. There, the Supreme Court
considered Bye-Laws 34 and 35 of the Council, under which the rules
governing retirement of Government employees and the FRSR were to
apply to the employees of the Council, with the latter expressly providing
for their application “as amended from time to time” mutatis mutandis . The
Supreme Court nevertheless held that the applicability of the FRs was
subject to the specific provision in Clause 34 governing superannuation. The
Governing Body had fixed the age of superannuation at 60 years, and that
decision was held applicable on the date of the employee’s superannuation.
The Court, thus, upheld the view that the assumption that FR 56, as
amended from time to time, would automatically apply to the employees of
the Council was not correct, having regard to the specific provision
governing superannuation.
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 16 of 30

50. Although the setting in Central Council for Research is different, but
the decision is useful for the more limited point that even a continuing
application of FR/SR does not, by itself, answer how a subsequent change in
the age of superannuation enters the service conditions of another employer.
Adoption by DTL, IPGCL and PPCL
51. The Petitioner places considerable reliance on the position of Medical
Officers in DTL, IPGCL and PPCL. These companies also emerged from
the restructuring of DVB, and each subsequently enhanced the retirement
age of its Medical Officers. The manner in which that enhancement was
brought about is relevant.
52. DTL placed the matter before its Board, which approved the
nd th
enhancement on 22 March, 2017. The Office Order dated 13 April, 2017
records that approval and provides that, “henceforth”, the age of
superannuation of regular Medical Officers in DTL would be 65 years.
IPGCL and PPCL followed a similar course. Their Board of Directors
approved the enhancement from 60 to 65 before the change was
implemented.
53. These Board decisions cannot, of course, determine the meaning of
TPDDL’s service conditions. Their relevance is narrower. They show that
the other successor companies did not proceed on the footing that the 2016
Government decision, by itself, had automatically altered the retirement age
applicable to their Medical Officers. Rather, each acted through its
competent Board before extending the enhanced retirement age. The
possibility that these decisions merely formalised a benefit which had
already become applicable cannot be entirely excluded, but the language of

8
(2023) 16 SCC 462.
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 17 of 30

the DTL Office Order does not readily support that reading: it records the
Board’s approval of the enhancement and makes the revised retirement age
applicable “henceforth”. The IPGCL and PPCL decision similarly records
approval by their Board before the change was implemented.
54. This also answers the point that TPDDL has not produced any
subsequent decision separately fixing the Petitioner’s retirement age at 60.
None was required for that purpose. 60 was the applicable age when her
service was transferred to TPDDL. The legal source which has to be found
is, therefore, not for the continuance of 60, but for its enhancement to 65.
Applicability of the 2016 Government Decisions
55. There is a further difficulty with the Petitioner’s reliance upon the
st
Government decisions of 2016. The GOI order dated 31 May, 2016 does
not enhance the retirement age of medical officers generally. It applies to
Specialists in the specified sub-cadres of CHS and to General Duty Medical
th
Officers of CHS. The GNCTD order dated 30 September, 2016 similarly
concerns the corresponding categories of doctors in DHS.
56. The Petitioner was selected through UPSC for appointment in DESU.
That explains the manner of her entry into service; it does not make her a
member of CHS or DHS.
57. The subsequent formulation of FR 56(bb) reinforces this position. The
provision identifies the medical services to which the special retirement
arrangement applies. Nor does it simply prescribe 65 as the age of
superannuation for every doctor covered by it. In the case of the specified
services, it contemplates retirement at 62, with provision for continuation up
to 65 in designated teaching, clinical, patient-care, public-health, advisory or
consultancy functions, subject to the prescribed option and the decision of
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 18 of 30

the competent authority.
58. The Petitioner’s own representation of March 2026 proceeds on
substantially the same understanding. She referred to continuation in
administrative positions up to the age of 62 and thereafter in non-
administrative functions.
59. Thus, even if the Petitioner were right in contending that subsequent
amendments to FR/SR travelled into TPDDL without separate adoption, the
provisions on which she relies would not, by themselves, confer an
unconditional right to continue in her existing post until the age of 65.
Effect of Post-Unbundling Amendments and related Decisions
60. The decisions in Rajeev Kumar Garg and Mamta deal more directly
with the effect of amendments made by the Government after the
unbundling of DVB.
61. In Rajeev Kumar Garg , the Court considered Government rules and
circulars issued after the unbundling of DVB and held that the Government
might continue to modify its rules, but this would not mean that such
subsequent amendments or circulars would automatically apply to
employees of a private successor organisation.
62. Mamta is particularly relevant because the employer there was DTL.
The Court applied the principle in Rajeev Kumar Garg and denied the
benefit of the post-unbundling amendment since it had not been adopted by
DTL. The principle, therefore, is relevant both to private successor
DISCOMs such as the respondent in Rajeev Kumar Garg and to other
successor entities of DVB.
63. Anju Koshal followed the same approach while considering
subsequent Government OMs relating to family pension. Though the benefit
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 19 of 30

in question was different, the Court again declined to treat a post-unbundling
Government amendment as automatically incorporated into the service
conditions of the successor organisation.
64. These decisions are consistent with the distinction which emerges
from Section 16 of the Reform Act and Rule 6 of the Transfer Scheme
Rules: the service conditions carried across on transfer remained protected,
but a subsequent enlargement of those conditions did not become binding
merely because its source lay in Government rules.
65. Sushil Kumar Khanna stands on a different footing. The Time Bound
Promotion Scheme considered there had been introduced by DVB before its
unbundling, and the claim was founded upon the interpretation of the DVB
Office Orders governing that scheme. The Court was, thus, enforcing a
benefit arising under an existing DVB scheme and preserving the service
benefits attaching to the employee prior to the restructuring. The case did
not concern a benefit introduced by the Government for the first time after
the transfer to a successor organisation. That distinction is material here. The
enhancement on which the Petitioner relies came in 2016, long after her
service had been transferred to TPDDL.
9
66. Kuldeep Kumar & Ors. v. Delhi Power Co. Ltd. DPCL & Ors. ,
though arising from disciplinary proceedings, is also of some assistance in
understanding the structure of the transfer. The Division Bench, affirming
the view of the Single Judge, recognised that the Transfer Scheme Rules
effected a statutory severance of the employees from DVB. Upon transfer,
the employees ceased to be in the service of DVB and could no longer claim
service benefits under the Board; Rule 6(7), however, preserved continuity
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 20 of 30

of the existing service conditions, as an interim arrangement, until the
transferee framed its own regulations. The decision is relevant to that limited
proposition. Continuity of the protected service conditions did not mean that
the transferee continued to be DVB, or that the regulations of the transferor
remained permanently applicable to the transferred employees.
th
Effect of the order dated 13 August, 2008 in DVB Engineers Assn.
67. The Petitioner places considerable reliance on DVB Engineers Assn .
The reliance is understandable. The order records a statement on behalf of
the private DISCOMs that they would extend “all the benefits at par” with
those available to erstwhile DVB employees in the transmission, generation
and holding companies. It also records that the terms and conditions of
service of the transferred employees would be governed by the Tripartite
Agreement, FRSR structure, CCS Rules and the Transfer Scheme Rules.
68. Those words, however, have to be read in the proceedings in which
they were recorded. DVB Engineers Assn. arose out of the constitution of a
Wage Revision Committee for erstwhile DVB employees serving in the
transmission, generation and holding companies. Employees allocated to the
private DISCOMs had been informed that they were not covered by the
recommendations of that Committee, and the relief sought was to extend to
them the interim and final recommendations of the Committee.
69. The private DISCOMs initially resisted that claim on the ground that
they were not bound by the pay structure recommended by the Government-
appointed Committee. The statement regarding parity was thereafter made
and recorded by the Court. On that basis, the order records that the interim
as well as final recommendations of the Wage Revision Committee would

9 th
LPA 392/2026, decision dated 20 May, 2026 (Delhi High Court).
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 21 of 30

also be made applicable to the members of the petitioner association,
following which the petition was not pressed for any further relief.
70. Clause 3(c) of the Tripartite Agreement is also relevant in
understanding that setting. Immediately after Clause 3(b), it provides:
“With regard to wage negotiations, the present system of bipartite
negotiations shall continue.”

71. DVB Engineers Assn. therefore addressed the exclusion of employees
transferred to the private DISCOMs from the wage revision then being
undertaken for their counterparts in the transmission, generation and holding
companies. The statement recorded by the Court must be given full effect in
that setting.
72. The difficulty lies in carrying the words “all benefits at par” beyond
that setting and treating them as a continuing undertaking that every
subsequent decision concerning retirement age or other service conditions in
another successor company would, without anything further, become
applicable in TPDDL. Neither the subject of the proceedings nor the terms
in which they were disposed of support so wide a conclusion. Such a reading
would, in substance, require the successor companies to maintain identical
service conditions indefinitely, notwithstanding their separate corporate
existence and subsequent decisions on matters of service administration. The
Transfer Scheme Rules do not impose such an obligation.
73. At the same time, the 2008 order cannot be treated as inconsequential
merely because it records a statement made by counsel. The petition was
disposed of on that basis, and the statement must be given effect in the field
which the order addressed. However, that order neither adjudicates upon any
parity claim nor does it hold that parity between the successor companies
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 22 of 30

must continue in respect of every service condition introduced in the future.
10
74. MCD v. Gurnam Kaur is relevant only to this limited extent. The
Supreme Court held that when an order is made by consent, the Court does
not adjudicate upon the rights of the parties or lay down any principle, and
that only the principle forming the ratio decidendi of a case is binding. The
decision, therefore, cautions against treating an order resting on consent or
concession as an adjudication of a wider proposition of law. It does not,
however, render the statement recorded in 2008 inconsequential between the
parties or deprive it of effect within the field addressed by that order.
The later decision of APTEL
75. The decision of APTEL in Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. v.
DERC requires closer consideration. It cannot be distinguished merely on
the ground that it arose in tariff proceedings.
76. TPDDL itself relied before APTEL upon the order in DVB Engineers
Assn. and upon the obligations arising from the transfer arrangement. In
relation to food allowance and Children Education Allowance, APTEL
accepted that the enhanced benefits were required to be extended to the
FRSR Structure employees and directed that the corresponding expenditure
be recognised for tariff purposes.
77. The decision is significant because APTEL did not treat the
obligations arising from the transfer arrangement as having exhausted
themselves with the Wage Revision Committee or with the original terms
applicable upon restructuring. In relation to food allowance, APTEL
specifically held that TPDDL was bound to enhance the allowance in
accordance with the Reforms Act, the statutory transfer scheme and the
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 23 of 30

Tripartite Agreement.
78. The nature of the benefits considered by APTEL nevertheless remains
important. Food allowance and Children Education Allowance were
employee allowances forming part of employee costs. APTEL was
concerned with the expenditure incurred by TPDDL on these allowances
and whether the enhanced expenditure was to be recognised in the tariff
determination. It was not considering whether a subsequent decision of DTL
concerning tenure or age of superannuation would, without adoption by
TPDDL, alter the service conditions of TPDDL employees.
79. Had APTEL laid down that every service condition subsequently
adopted by DTL automatically became part of the service conditions of
transferred employees in TPDDL, the present claim would stand on a very
different footing. The decision does not go that far.
80. The APTEL decision thus confirms that the obligations arising from
the transfer arrangement remained substantive after 2008, particularly in
matters of employee compensation. It does not establish that the separate
service policies of the successor companies thereafter ceased to require
independent adoption.
TPDDL’s Subsequent Conduct
81. The Petitioner also relies upon TPDDL’s own conduct after
unbundling. The submission has some force. TPDDL has, over the years,
extended later Government-linked revisions in pay, DACP and other service
benefits to employees who continued within the FRSR structure. The
Petitioner therefore asks why the retirement-age revision should be treated
differently.

10
(1989) 1 SCC 101.
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 24 of 30

82. The answer cannot rest merely on the fact that TPDDL is privately
managed. The service conditions of the transferred employees derive from
the statutory arrangements made at restructuring, and TPDDL remains
bound by the protections contained in those arrangements.
83. The past practice nevertheless does not establish automatic
incorporation of every subsequent Government decision. The record shows
that later Government-linked benefits were extended through decisions
taken by TPDDL and, in some instances, in the context of the wage
arrangements reflected in DVB Engineers Assn . That conduct confirms the
continued operation of the inherited FRSR structure; it does not establish
that every future change within that structure became binding upon TPDDL
without any decision on its part.
84. The plea of estoppel does not take the matter further. Adoption of
particular Government-linked benefits over time cannot amount to advance
adoption of every subsequent change in service conditions.
85. Nor can the doctrine of legitimate expectation create a right to
continue in service until 65 where the governing instruments do not confer
one. The Petitioner could legitimately expect TPDDL to honour the
protections assured at restructuring and to deal with subsequent changes
consistently with those protections. That expectation cannot substitute for
the legal source required to extend the age of superannuation.
Claim of Parity with the Other Successor Companies
86. The Petitioner’s parity argument raises a real concern. Employees
who began as Medical Officers in the same organisation and were thereafter
allocated to different successor companies may now retire at different ages.
87. That consequence, however, does not by itself establish a violation of
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 25 of 30

the protections given at restructuring. Those protections ensured that an
employee would not suffer a diminution of the service conditions carried
into the transferee company. They did not require all successor companies to
maintain identical service conditions indefinitely.
88. DTL enhanced the retirement age through a decision of its Board.
IPGCL and PPCL did likewise. Once the later Government decision is found
not to operate automatically in each successor company, the adoption of that
decision by one company cannot, by itself, alter the service conditions in
another.
89. The recent decision in Union of India Through its Secretary
Department of Telecommunication & Ors. v. All India Retired Bharat
11
Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Executive Welfare Association & Ors. , concerning
employees of the Department of Telecommunications who were absorbed in
BSNL/MTNL, proceeds on a comparable principle, though under a different
statutory framework. The Court recognised that, notwithstanding their
absorption in the PSUs, the employees retained the limited statutory
protection expressly conferred upon them, including the formula for
calculation of pension under Rule 37A. It nevertheless held that such
protection could not be expanded so as to preserve, in perpetuity, their status
or parity with Central Government employees for all subsequent benefits.
Upon absorption, they ceased to be Government servants and became
subject to the rules of the PSU. The decision is relevant only by analogy; the
present case must ultimately be decided on the terms of Section 16 of the
Reform Act, the Transfer Scheme Rules and the Tripartite Agreement.
Effect of the Pension Trust’s View
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 26 of 30

90. The view taken by the Pension Trust also deserves consideration. The
Trust administers the pensionary arrangements of the transferred DVB
employees and, after obtaining legal advice, took the position that TPDDL
could not retire the Petitioner at 60. Its opinion is therefore not without
relevance.
91. The Trust’s function, however, is to administer pensionary benefits
consequent upon lawful retirement. It does not determine the age up to
which TPDDL is required to employ a transferred employee. Its conclusion
rests upon its interpretation of the Tripartite Agreement and FR 56, and the
correctness of that interpretation is ultimately a matter for the Court.
92. The resulting difficulty in the release of pensionary benefits is,
therefore, a consequence of the dispute over the date of superannuation. If
st
31 May, 2026 is the lawful date of retirement, the Pension Trust must
process the Petitioner’s pensionary benefits on that basis. Its contrary
understanding of the retirement age cannot, by itself, enlarge the Petitioner’s
tenure in TPDDL.
Relief and the Scope of Mandamus
93. The nature of the relief sought now assumes importance. If Section 16
of the Reform Act, Rule 6(7) of the Transfer Scheme Rules or the Tripartite
Agreement already entitled the Petitioner to continue until 65, the Court
would merely be enforcing an existing condition of service. No question of
choosing or prescribing a retirement age would then arise.
94. The Court has, however, found no such entitlement. The Petitioner’s
retirement age was 60 when her service was transferred to TPDDL. The
Government subsequently altered the retirement arrangement for specified

11 st
W.P.(C) 4946/2024, decision dated 1 July, 2026 (Delhi High Court).
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 27 of 30

medical services. DTL, IPGCL and PPCL thereafter adopted the
enhancement for their Medical Officers through decisions of their respective
Boards. TPDDL did not.
95. The first prayer in the writ petition itself seeks a direction to TPDDL
to “enhance” the Petitioner’s age of superannuation. The expression used in
the prayer is not, of course, determinative. If the higher retirement age
already formed part of her service conditions, the Court could enforce that
right irrespective of the manner in which the relief had been framed. The
difficulty is that no statutory provision, TPDDL rule, Board decision or
binding settlement has been shown which fixes her retirement age at 65.
96. It is at this stage that the decision in Dr. R.D. Thakur v. Union of
12
India & Ors. becomes relevant. The case also concerned a prayer for
enhancement of the age of superannuation of Doctors/Medical Officers from
60 years to 65 years, where the age had already been enhanced in other
Government organisations. The Court, relying upon Central Council for
Research , held that the age of superannuation is governed by statutory rules
and other service conditions and that it is not for the Court to prescribe a
different age of retirement. The Court accordingly declined to issue a
mandamus directing enhancement of the retirement age.
97. The decision does not, however, answer the anterior question whether
the Petitioner already possessed a protected right to continue until 65 years.
That question has been examined in the present case independently on the
basis of the Reform Act, the Transfer Scheme Rules and the Tripartite
Agreement. Once no such right is found, R.D. Thakur reinforces the
conclusion that the Court cannot, by a writ of mandamus, prescribe a higher
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 28 of 30

age of retirement merely because such higher age has been granted to
Doctors/Medical Officers in other organisations or cadres.
98. A direction requiring TPDDL to continue the Petitioner until 65
would therefore do more than compel compliance with an existing service
condition. It would supply the act of adoption which the governing
instruments themselves do not supply and which TPDDL has not
undertaken.
99. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued for that purpose. It may compel
performance of a legal duty which already exists; it cannot create the duty
which is sought to be enforced.
Conclusion and Directions
100. For the reasons recorded above, the Petitioner has not established any
existing statutory provision, service rule, Board decision or binding
settlement entitling her to continue in service with TPDDL until the age of
65 years. The decision of TPDDL to treat the Petitioner as having
st
superannuated on 31 May, 2026 therefore calls for no interference.
101. The objection raised by TPDDL to the maintainability of the writ
petition against it need not be decided. The parties have been heard fully on
the merits and, in view of the conclusion reached above, that larger question
is left open.
102. The position regarding the Petitioner’s date of superannuation having
now been determined, the DVB Pension Trust ought not to retain or return
her pension papers on the ground that the date of retirement remains under
challenge. The Petitioner is consequently entitled to have her pensionary and
other retirement benefits processed, in accordance with law.

12 th
W.P.(C) 13189/2023, decision dated 4 May, 2026 (Delhi High Court).
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 29 of 30

103. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, subject to the following
directions:
st
a. The Petitioner’s retirement from TPDDL on 31 May, 2026 shall
stand.
b. If any document or formality necessary for processing her pensionary
or retirement benefits remains outstanding, TPDDL shall identify the same
in one consolidated communication to the Petitioner within one week from
the date of this order. The Petitioner shall complete any such requirement
within one week thereafter.
c. TPDDL shall thereafter forward the complete pension papers to DVB
Pension Trust without delay. If the papers are already complete, no
document shall be called for afresh merely because the pension folder was
earlier returned.
d. DVB Pension Trust shall process and release the Petitioner’s pension,
together with arrears admissible from the date of retirement, within six
weeks of receipt of the complete pension papers. TPDDL shall, within the
same period, release any other retirement dues payable by it which remain
outstanding.
e. Any admitted amount which remains unpaid beyond the period
stipulated above shall carry simple interest at 6% per annum from the expiry
of that period until payment.
104. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

SANJEEV NARULA, J
SEPTEMBER 2, 2026/ab

Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
16:13:29
W.P.(C) 7368/2026 Page 30 of 30