As per case facts, Petitioners, long-serving executives at BHEL, resigned after being selected for posts in other Government undertakings. Their applications were routed through proper channels. BHEL later refused to ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 1 of 29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 6
th
February, 2026
Pronounced on: 10
th
March, 2026.
Uploaded on: 10
th
March, 2026.
+ W.P.(C) 12069/2018
SH. NAVEEN KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Singh, Mr. Onkar Nath and
Mr. Anuj Mirdha, Advocates.
versus
BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. NEW DELHI
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. A. K. Roy, Advocate.
+ W.P.(C) 12110/2018
SH. MUKUL AGARWAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Singh, Mr. Onkar Nath and
Mr. Anuj Mirdha, Advocates.
versus
BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. NEW DELHI
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. A. K. Roy, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J.:
1. The Petitioners were long-serving executives of Bharat Heavy
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 2 of 29
Electricals Limited
1
, a Central Public Sector Enterprise. Both left BHEL
after being selected to a post in another Government of India undertaking.
Their applications were routed through proper channel. Their resignations
were accepted and they were relieved. Subsequently, BHEL declined (i) to
transfer, or otherwise monetise, the Half Pay Leave
2
standing to their credit
and (ii) to transfer any pension corpus or contribution to the National
Pension System
3
, or otherwise account for such benefit. The Petitioners
contend that the refusal contradicts the applicable Government policy and
BHEL’s own personnel rules and framework. BHEL maintains that
resignation operates as a severance and, in any event, its rules contain no
enabling provision for the reliefs sought.
2. The petitions are being decided by a common judgment, given the
substantial overlap in the grounds of challenge, the reliefs sought, and the
legal questions that arise for determination. The leave claim, however,
requires separate treatment. In Mukul Agarwal’s case, the leave balance has
already been transferred to the transferee organisation. In Naveen Kumar
Gupta’s case, the HPL has not been transferred and the Petitioner seeks
either transfer or, if transfer is not possible, payment of the equivalent value.
FACTS IN BRIEF
3. Mukul Agarwal joined BHEL on 25
th
November, 1994 and served in
the finance stream. He was promoted as Manager on 25
th
June, 2014. In
November 2013, he applied through proper channel for the post of Manager
(F&A) in Rural Electrification Corporation Limited
4
, a Government of India
1
“BHEL”
2
“HPL”
3
“NPS”
4
“REC”
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 3 of 29
CPSE. BHEL forwarded the application by letter dated 19
th
November,
2013. REC issued an appointment letter dated 09
th
February, 2015. The
Petitioner resigned from BHEL and was relieved with effect from 28
th
March, 2015. At the time of resignation, he claims Earned Leave of 63 days
and Half Pay Leave of 265 days, besides the pension contribution/corpus
under the relevant superannuation benefit scheme. REC wrote to BHEL on
17
th
April, 2015 seeking transfer of (i) Earned Leave/Half Pay Leave, (ii)
provident fund/gratuity, and (iii) the accumulated pension fund, including
accrued interest. Internally, BHEL’s HR department sought processing from
the concerned finance/payroll branch on 30
th
April, 2015. When no
resolution followed, the Petitioner raised the issue through CPGRAMS.
BHEL rejected the request on 07
th
May, 2016. The Petitioner pursued the
matter again and BHEL, by communication dated 01
st
June, 2017, declined
transfer of leave on the premise that there was no provision in BHEL rules
to transfer leave to another PSU in case of resignation.
4. Naveen Kumar Gupta joined BHEL on 28
th
December, 1995 and was
promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager (Finance) on 25
th
June,
2014. He applied through proper channel for the post of Executive Director
(Finance) in National Handloom Development Corporation Limited,
5
a
Government of India undertaking. BHEL forwarded his application on 17
th
July, 2015. NHDC issued an appointment letter dated 09
th
September, 2015.
Before being relieved, he addressed a request dated 30
th
September, 2015
seeking transfer or encashment of Half Pay Leave. BHEL accepted his
resignation with effect from 17
th
October, 2015 and relieved him
accordingly. NHDC thereafter wrote on 26
th
November, 2015 seeking
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 4 of 29
transfer or credit of the Petitioner’s HPL. The Petitioner continued to pursue
the matter through representations dated 27
th
September, 2016 and 10
th
November, 2017, but to no avail.
5. Both Petitioners, aggrieved by the continuing refusal, approached this
Court by filing W.P.(C) 4303 of 2018 (Mukul Agarwal) and W.P.(C) 4368
of 2018 (Naveen Kumar Gupta). By a common order dated 27
th
April, 2018,
this Court granted time to submit concise representations and directed
BHEL to reconsider the matter and pass a speaking decision. Pursuant to
those directions, representations dated 15
th
May, 2018 were submitted.
BHEL thereafter issued separate speaking orders dated 02
nd
July, 2018
rejecting the claims relating to leave and pension. The present writ petitions
assail those orders and seek the reliefs earlier pressed. Those speaking order
which are the principal subject of challenge read as follows:
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 [Shri. Naveen Kumar Gupta ]
“Pursuant to the Order of the High Court at Delhi dated 27
th
April, 2018 in
the matter of W.P. (C) no 4368 of 2018-Sri. Naveen Kumar Gupta Vs.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, New Delhi, your representation dated
15
th
May 2018 has since been received in BHEL House Sin Fort New Delhi
on 18
th
May 2018. In your representation, the following aspects have been
raised:
i). Transfer of Half Pay Leave balance of 250 days standing to your credit
at the time of your resignation from the services of BHEL to your new
employer National Handlooms Development Corporation Ltd. or equivalent
amount be paid in lieu thereof, and
ii) Transfer of Pension fund from the date of your joining in BHEL or from
the date of start of scheme i.e. 01.01.2007, be transferred to your NPS Ac.
No.(PRAN) 110121482966 or paid directly to your SBI Ac. No.
10667912051.
Both the issues raised in the representation have been examined in
consideration to DPE guidelines / company policy on the matter.
5
“NHDC”
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 5 of 29
A. Transfer of Half Pay Leave;
The Company policy provides that carry forward of leave at the credit of
employees in earlier organisation, on joining the services of the company, is
allowed only in cases of employees who join the company from central
government and other Public sector undertakings, provided management of
both the organisations agree to such transfer of services and a provision of
transfer of half pay leaves is also available in rules of both the
organisations.
Carry forward/ transfer of leave, however, is not permitted in cases of
employees who leave the company for joining the other organisation.
BPE OM No. 2(2)/85-BPE (WC) dated 25
th
January, 1988 provides for the
carry forward of leave in the case of employees moving from one public
enterprise to the other with the consent of both the Managements, which is
further subject to the condition that both the Organisations should contain a
specific provision permitting transfer and acceptance of the liability for the
balance of Half pay leave standing to the credit of the employee on the date
of resignation.
Since BHEL Rules do not contain the provision for transfer of leave liability
to other organisations, the request for transfer of leave balance in your case
to National Handlooms Development Corporation Ltd. is not permissible.
Further transfer of services of one Govt. Department / Public Sector
Organisation to another cannot be treated at par with an employee who has
submitted his resignation on his own volition No Objection Certificate from
the Company for appearing in interview in other Govt, organisation is
provided merely to meet application requirement of such prospective
employers.
National Handloom Development Corporation/ any other Govt. Department
has not approached the company to transfer / spare your services, in Govt.
interests, at any point of time nor BHEL intended to transfer services of the
BHEL employee to National Handloom Development Corporation/any
Govt. Deptt.
The company is therefore constrained to accede to your request for transfer
of Half pay leave or equivalent amount to National Handloom Development
Corporation.
Further, with regard to your request that in case transfer of leave to
National Handloom Development Corporation is not possible, an equivalent
amount be paid in lieu thereof, it is informed that there is no provision of
encashment of Half Pay Leave on resignation in company rules / DPE
guidelines.
It may further be noted that corrective action has been initiated and refund
of the amount transferred towards Half Pay Leave in case of Shri Pradip
Kumar Das Staff no 3502376 has been sought from Rural Electrification
Corporation Ltd., New Delhi.
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 6 of 29
A. Transfer of Pension Fund to NPS or to his Bank Account:
The eligibility condition for pension corpus under BHEL Employees
Pension Scheme inter alia provides as under:
4.1 Regular employees of the Company, who superannuate from the
Company on or after 01/01/2007, with minimum 15 years of continuous
service. Note: Service rendered more than 14 years & 6 months but less
than 15 years will not be treated as 15 years. The services rendered as
temporary workers against sanctioned vacancy will be counted for 15 years
of service.
4.3 Superannuation on account of early retirement by the Company on or
after 01.01.2007, with minimum 15 years of continuous service.
4.8 "Severance of service by the employee on account of resignation,
termination, compulsory retirement as a penalty, dismissal / removal
because of disciplinary proceedings, will not be eligible under the Scheme.
Cases of voluntary retirement under specific VRS/VSS scheme, would be
examined separately. However, cases of employees availing Voluntary
(premature) retirement if otherwise eligible for pension, will be covered
under BIHEL Employees' Pension Scheme."
In terms of the approved scheme of the company, in the event of resignation
the pension corpus is NOT payable to an employee nor can it be transferred
to another organisation.
Further, there is no provision under the scheme for an employee to make his
/her own contribution to pension fund. BHEL Employees' Pension Scheme is
purely and entirely company funded scheme. It is also pertinent to mention
that there is no provision under BHEL Pension Scheme for commutation of
pension or draw reduced pension / pension corpus or encashment payment
of pension corpus to an employee in events other than specified for
eligibility of pension corpus.
DPE OM F.No. W-02/0017/2014-DPE-(WC)-G1-XI/14 dated 21
st
May 2014
on Pension Scheme and Post Superannuation Medical Benefits in CPSEs,
clearly specifies that “In the event of any employee resigning from the
services of CPS£ and joining another CPSE having broadly similar
schemes, the entire amount of employer's and employee's contribution along
with the interest accrued thereon can be transferred to such CPSE.
However, employees who resign from CPSE to join another CPSE, not
having similar schemes, or any organisation not being a CPSE
(irrespective of whether such scheme exists in that organisation), shall not
be allowed the benefit of transferring their accumulated fund under these
schemes. However, the employee’s contribution along with accrued
interests shall be refundable to the employees."
Since there is no employee contribution to BHEL Pension Fund, in terms of
BHEL Pension Scheme and also in terms of DPE Guidelines, there is no
amount available in BHEL Pension Fund which was created out of your
own contribution and therefore question of refund of your contribution does
not arise. Accordingly, your request for payment of pension fund to your
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 7 of 29
Bank Account cannot be acceded to.
It is also informed that BHEL Employees Pension Scheme and Pension
Scheme of National Handloom Development Corporation, your current
employer are entirely different BHEL Employee Pension Scheme is operated
on group corpus basis whereas National Handloom Development
Corporation / NPS, Scheme is individual account based scheme wherein
employer and employee both can contribute. Under BHEL Pension Scheme
individual account is not created, maintained or operated for crediting of
pension contributions.
Under BHEL Scheme, an employee Is eligible for individual pension corpus
only at the time of retirement/ superannuation/ death. In such an event,
individual pension corpus is calculated based on funds viability and there is
no fund earmarked to an individual employee during his/her service Since
Pension schemes of both organisations are completely different and
dissimilar, It is not feasible to transfer or earmark the pension corpus in
name of any individual for transfer to another organisation or for
commutation / encashment.
However, since you had applied to National Handloom Development
Corporation through proper channel, and there is continuity of service in
the company and National Handloom Development Corporation, in terms of
OM No. W-02/0017/2014-DPE (WC)-GL-IV/17 dated 1
st
February, 2017
the benefits of past service in BHEL, for the purpose of reckoning of
eligibility period for superannuation benefits such as gratuity etc., shall be
made available to you by National Handloom Development Corporation, in
the event of leaving their services, subject to scheme / rules framed by them.
Furthermore, even in case of government service, there is forfeiture of
Pension at the time of resignation and the amount of corpus is not returned
to the individual. Pension in their case as well is regulated only at the time
of superannuation from Government service.”
W.P.(C) 12110/2018 [Shri Mukul Agarwal]
“Pursuant to the Order of the High Court at Delhi dated 27
th
April, 2018 in
the matter of W.P. (C) no. 4368 of 2018-Sh. Mukul Agarwal Vs. Bharat
Heavy Electricals Limited, New Delhi, your representation dated 15
th
May
2018 has since been received in BHEL House Siri Fort New Delhi on
19.05.2018. In your representation, the following aspects have been raised:
i). Transfer of Half Pay Leave balance of 265 days and Earned leave of 63
days standing to the credit at the time of your resignation from the services
of BHEL to his new employer REC Ltd. or equivalent amount be paid to
him, and
ii) Transfer of Pension fund from the date of your joining in BHEL or from
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 8 of 29
the date of start of scheme i.e. 01.01.2007, be transferred to your NPS Ac.
No.(PRAN) 1100117394231 or paid directly to your SBI Ac. No.
10173161692.
Both the issues raised in the representation have been examined in
consideration to DPE guidelines / company policy on the matter.
A. Transfer of Half Pay Leave:
The Company policy provides that carry forward of leave at the credit of
employees in earlier organisation, enjoining the services of the company, is
allowed only in cases of employees who join the company from central
government and other Public sector undertakings, provided management of
both the organisations agree to such transfer of services and a provision of
transfer of half pay leaves is also available in rules of both the
organisations.
Carry forward/ transfer of leave (HPL/EL), however, is not permitted in
case of employees who leave the company for joining the other
organisation.
BPE OM No. 2(2)/85-BPE (WC) dated 25
th
January, 1988 provides for the
carry forward of leave in the case of employees moving from one public
enterprise to the other with the consent of both the Managements, which is
further subject to the condition that both the Organisations should contain a
specific provision permitting transfer and acceptance of the liability for the
balance of Half pay leave standing to the credit of the employee on the date
of resignation.
Since BHEL Rules do not contain the provision for transfer of leave liability
to other organisations, the request for transfer of leave balance in your case
to REC Ltd. is not permissible.
Further, transfer of services of one Govt. Department / Public Sector
Organisation to another cannot be treated at par with resignation of an
employee on its volition. No Objection Certificate from the Company for
appearing in interview in other Govt. organisation is provided merely to
meet application requirement of such prospective employers.
REC Ltd / any other Govt. Department has not approached the company to
transfer / spare your services, in Govt. interests, at any point of time nor
BHEL intended to transfer services of the BHEL employee to REC Ltd./ any
Govt. Deptt.
The company is therefore constrained to accede to the request for transfer
of Half pay leave / EL or equivalent amount to REC Ltd.
Further, with regard to your request that in case transfer of leave to REC is
not possible, an equivalent amount be paid in lieu thereof, it is informed that
there is no provision of encashment of Half Pay Leave on resignation in
company rules / DPE guidelines.
It may further be noted that corrective action has been Initiated and refund
of the amount transferred towards Half Pay Leave in case of Shri Pradip
Kumar Das Staff no 3502376 has been sought from Rural Electrification
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 9 of 29
Corporation Ltd., New Delhi.
A. Transfer of Pension Fund to NPS or to his Bank Account:
The eligibility condition for pension corpus under BHEL Employees
Pension Scheme inter alia provides as under:
4.1 Regular employees of the Company, who superannuate from the
Company on or after 01/01/2007, with minimum 15 years of continuous
service. Note: Service rendered more than 14 years &6 months but less than
15 years will not be treated as 15 years. The services rendered as temporary
workers against sanctioned vacancy will be counted for 15 years of service.
4.3 Superannuation on account of early retirement by the Company on or
after 01.01.2007, with minimum 15 years of continuous service.
4.8 "Severance of service by the employee on account of resignation,
termination, compulsory retirement as a penalty, dismissal / removal
because of disciplinary proceedings, will not be eligible under the Scheme.
Cases of voluntary retirement under specific VRS/VSS scheme, would be
examined separately. However, cases of employees availing Voluntary
(premature) retirement if otherwise eligible for pension, will be covered
under BHEL Employees' Pension Scheme."
In terms of the approved scheme of the company, in the event of resignation
the pension corpus is NOT payable to an employee nor can it be transferred
to another organisation.
Further, there is no provision under the scheme for an employee to make his
/her own contribution to pension fund. BHEL Employees' Pension Scheme is
purely and entirely company funded scheme. It is also pertinent to mention
that there is no provision under BHEL Pension Scheme for commutation of
pension or draw reduced pension / pension corpus or encashment/ payment
of pension corpus to an employee in events other than specified for
eligibility of pension corpus.
DPE OM F.No. W-02/0017/2014-DPE-(WC)-GI-XI/14 dated 21
st
May 2014
on Introduction of Pension Scheme and Post Superannuation Medical
Benefits in CPSEs, clearly specifies that "In the event of any employee
resigning from the services of CPSE and joining another CPSE having
broadly similar schemes, the entire amount of employer's and employee's
contribution along with the interest accrued thereon can be transferred to
such CPSE. However, employees who resign from CPSE to join another
CPSE, not having similar schemes, or any organisation not being a CPSE
(irrespective of whether such scheme exists in that organisation), shall not
be allowed the benefit of transferring their accumulated fund under these
schemes. However, the employee's contribution along with accrued
interests shall be refundable to the employees."
Since there is no employee contribution to BHEL Pension Fund, in terms of
BHEL Pension Scheme and also in terms of DPE Guidelines, there is no
amount available in BHEL Pension Fund which was created out of your
own contribution and therefore question of refund of your contribution does
not arise. Accordingly, your request for payment of pension fund to your
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 10 of 29
Bank Account cannot be acceded.
It is also informed that BHEL Employees Pension Scheme and Pension
Scheme of Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., your current employer
are entirely different. BHEL Employee Pension Scheme is operated on
group corpus basis whereas REC Scheme is individual account based
scheme wherein employer and employee both can contribute. Under BHEL
Pension Scheme individual account is not created, maintained or operated
for crediting of pension contributions.
Under BHEL Scheme, an employee is eligible for individual pension corpus
only at the time of retirement/ superannuation/ death. In such an event,
individual pension corpus is calculated based on funds viability and there is
no fund earmarked to an individual employee during his/her service. Since
Pension schemes of both organisations are completely different and
dissimilar, it is not possible or feasible to transfer or earmark the pension
corpus in name of any individual for transfer to another organisation or for
commutation / encashment.
However, since you had applied to REC ltd. through proper channel and
there is continuity of service in the company and REC, in terms of OM No.
W-02/0017/2014- DPE (WC)-GL-IV/17 dated 1
st
February, 2017 the
benefits of past service in BHEL, for the purpose of reckoning of eligibility
period for superannuation benefits such as gratuity etc., shall be made
available to you by REC, in the event of leaving their services, subject to
scheme / rules framed by them.
Furthermore, even in case of government ser\/ice, there is forfeiture of
Pension at the time of resignation and the amount of corpus is not returned
to the individual. Pension in their case as well is regulated only at the time
of superannuation from Government service.”
THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS
BPE OM dated 25
th
January, 1988
6. This OM deals with “carry forward of leave in the case of employees
moving from one public enterprise to the other”. It contemplates transfer of
accumulated sick leave/half-pay leave to the transferee public sector
enterprise, subject to the transfer being with consent of managements of
both enterprises, or under Government/PESB direction, and subject to
discharge of liability by the transferor through a lump sum corresponding to
leave salary for the period transferred.
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 11 of 29
DPE OM dated 21
st
May, 2014 and DPE OM dated 1
st
February, 2017
7. The OM dated 21
st
May, 2014 provides clarifications on pension and
post-superannuation medical benefits in CPSEs. Clause (x) speaks to a
situation where an employee resigns from a CPSE and joins another CPSE
having broadly similar schemes, permitting transfer of the entire amount of
employer’s and employee’s contribution with interest. It also states that
where the joining is in an organisation not having similar schemes or not
being a CPSE, transfer is not allowed, but employee contribution with
interest is refundable.
8. Clause (xvi) of the 21
st
May, 2014 OM states that in cases of
resignation (excluding resignation covered under “technical formality
clause”), and certain penalty exits, the annuity would be based only on
member’s contributions, if any, and interest thereon.
9. The DPE OM dated 1
st
February, 2017 clarifies the meaning of
“technical formality”. It states that resignations under the “technical
formality clause” include resignations where a CPSE employee applied for a
post in the same or another CPSE through proper channel and, on selection,
is required to resign the previous post for administrative reasons. The OM
states that the clarification is for the purposes of superannuation benefit
schemes implemented in CPSEs in light of earlier DPE guidelines.
BHEL Personnel Manual, Volume II, Section E-1 (Carry forward of leave)
10. The Petitioners rely on Clause 8.2 of the Personnel Manual which, in
substance, adopts DPE guidelines for carry forward of leave “in the case of
employees moving from one public sector enterprise to the other with the
consent of both the Managements”, while also referencing the condition that
both organisations’ rules should contain a specific provision permitting
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 12 of 29
transfer and acceptance of liability, and that the transferor pays a lump sum
equal to leave salary for the period of leave transferred.
BHEL Employees’ Pension Scheme (Revised with effect from 1
st
March,
2016), and amendment dated 20
th
February, 2021 effective from 1
st
January,
2017
11. The 2016 scheme states it is a defined contribution plan with
contributions by the company within a prescribed ceiling. It identifies
eligibility categories for “pension corpus from the company”. Clause 4.8
excludes “severance of service by the employee on account of resignation”
from eligibility.
12. The 20
th
February, 2021 Corporate HR Circular amends Clause 4 with
effect from 1
st
January, 2017. The revised Clause 4.8 states that, with effect
from 1
st
January, 2017, employees separated on or after 1
st
January, 2017 on
attaining age of superannuation, retirement, premature retirement (company-
initiated or employee-initiated), compulsory retirement other than as a
penalty, voluntary retirement, voluntary separation scheme, resignation, and
removal other than as a penalty shall be eligible for pension under the
scheme. It also states that transfer of pension corpus for purchase of annuity
or to NPS account would be on request.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN BRIEF
13. The Petitioners contend that their resignations were not voluntary
severance in the ordinary sense. Each applied through proper channel to
another Government of India undertaking/CPSE, was selected, and was
required to tender resignation only as an administrative formality to enable
joining the new post. They submit that the governing public enterprise
policy recognises such movement and preserves service-linked benefits, and
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 13 of 29
that BHEL has wrongly treated their exits as disentitling “resignation” cases.
14. On transfer of leaves, the Petitioners rely on the BPE Office
Memorandum dated 25
th
January, 1988 and Clause 8.2 of BHEL’s Personnel
Manual, which, according to them, permit transfer of HPL in the case of
employees moving from one public enterprise to another with consent of
both managements, subject to discharge of leave liability by remittance of
the equivalent leave salary. They also point to instances where BHEL
transferred leave liability (including HPL) to another CPSE and submit that
denial in their case is arbitrary. In Naveen Kumar Gupta’s case, it is urged
that NHDC had expressly sought transfer/credit of HPL, yet BHEL refused;
he therefore seeks transfer, and if transfer is not possible, payment of the
equivalent amount.
15. On pension, the Petitioners rely on the DPE OM dated 21
st
May, 2014
and the clarificatory DPE OM dated 1
st
February, 2017 on “technical
formality”. They submit that once the resignation is understood as technical
formality in CPSE-to-CPSE move through a proper-channel, it cannot be
used to forfeit the benefit of employer contribution under a defined
contribution superannuation framework. They also rely on the order dated
27
th
April, 2018 passed by this Court in the earlier writ petitions, which
clarified that if the pension schemes are not comparable, pension has to be
transferred to NPS or released to the concerned employee.
16. BHEL contests the petitions and supports the orders dated 2
nd
July,
2018. It submits that, as a matter of its leave rules and policy, carry forward
of leave is contemplated only for employees joining BHEL from Central
Government/other PSUs, and that outward transfer of HPL on resignation is
not permitted. It contends that Clause 8.2 of the Personnel Manual is
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 14 of 29
conditional, and since BHEL’s leave rules contain no enabling provision for
transfer of HPL liability, the Petitioners cannot claim transfer. BHEL also
submits that an NOC or forwarding of an application through proper channel
is issued only to meet the requirements of the prospective employer and
cannot be equated with “consent of management” for transfer of service.
17. On pension, BHEL submits that its Employees’ Pension Scheme is a
company-funded superannuation benefit operated through a common
corpus/trust and purchase of annuity, and cannot be equated with
Government pension. It relies on Clause 4.8 of the scheme which excludes
resignation cases, and argues that no transfer or refund can arise since
employees make no contribution and no individual account is maintained
during service. BHEL also argues that the DPE framework contemplates
transfer only where schemes are broadly similar, which, according to BHEL,
is not the case with NPS/NHDC. It further contends that the DPE OM dated
1
st
February, 2017 cannot assist the Petitioners who resigned in 2015 and
that any later change in policy operates prospectively.
18. On these rival positions based on the pleadings, the material on record
and the submissions advanced, following questions arise for determination:
(i) Do the guidelines issued by the Bureau/Department of Public
Enterprises on carry forward/transfer of leave and on superannuation benefit
schemes apply to BHEL and, if so, to what extent?
(ii) On the leave claim, did BHEL lawfully refuse to transfer the Half Pay
Leave (“HPL”) balance or to otherwise discharge the leave liability, in light
of the BPE Office Memorandum dated 25
th
January, 1988 and the relevant
provisions of BHEL’s Personnel Manual/leave policy?
(iii) On pension, can BHEL deny any transfer or accounting of pension
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 15 of 29
corpus/contribution where an employee resigns after selection through
proper channel to another CPSE/Government of India undertaking, by
treating such resignation as a disqualifying severance, despite the DPE
guidance on “technical formality”?
(iv) Is BHEL entitled to rely on 1
st
January, 2017 as the cut-off date to
resist claims arising from separations in 2015, particularly where the
controversy remained alive through representations and judicial directions
culminating in the speaking orders dated 2
nd
July, 2018?
ANALYSIS
Issue (i): Applicability of BPE/DPE OMs to BHEL
19. BHEL is a CPSE. The DPE issues guidelines on pay revision and
associated superannuation benefits to CPSEs. BHEL itself asserts in its
counter affidavit that its pension scheme was introduced as part of wage
revision as per DPE guidelines. The said paragraph reads as follows:
“That it is pertinent to clarify that unlike in Govt., the employees of the
company are member of contributory provident fund scheme under
Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous provisions Act, 1952 Pensionary
benefits under BHEL Employees’ Pension Scheme is as an additional
superannuation benefit and has been introduced as part of wage revision
w.e.f. 01.01.2017, as per DPE guidelines, The pension scheme is nothing but
a mere purchase of annuities from Insurance Companies on retirement/ death
and cannot be compared with pension scheme in Govt. where pension is
disbursed from the Consolidated Funds of India.”
20. This assertion has two consequences. First, BHEL cannot
simultaneously adopt DPE guidelines as the source of authority for creating
and operating a pension scheme and then disown the interpretive framework
that accompanies those guidelines when disputes arise about mobility and
continuity.
21. Second, where BHEL’s own internal policy instrument (such as its
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 16 of 29
Personnel Manual) expressly states that DPE guidelines “will be followed”
in a defined class of cases, the guidelines are not being invoked as a mere
external persuasion. They enter the normative field through incorporation by
reference. The task then is to reconcile the internal instrument with the
Government guidelines rather than to treat them as strangers.
22. This is especially so in matters which affect mobility within public
service. CPSEs, unlike purely private entities, operate within a regulated
ecosystem where the State’s policy seeks to balance organisational
autonomy with fair treatment of personnel who move within the public
sector under lawful process.
Issue (ii): HPL transfer or discharge of liability
23. Two strands appear in BHEL’s reasoning in the speaking order dated
2
nd
July, 2018. One is textual: BHEL says its leave rules do not contain an
enabling provision for transfer of leave liability to another organisation, and
therefore the BPE OM dated 25
th
January, 1988 cannot be operationalised.
The other is factual: BHEL says this was not a “transfer of service” with
management consent but a voluntary resignation, and that NOC/proper-
channel forwarding does not constitute “consent”.
24. Neither strand answers the Petitioners’ case in a manner that can be
sustained. The Personnel Manual clause invoked by the Petitioners is not
confined to employees joining BHEL. Clause 8.2 reads as follows;
“8.2 In the matter of carry forward of leave in the case of employees moving
from one public enterprise to the other with the consent of both the
managements, the guidelines issued by the DPE from time to time will be
followed. This is subject to the condition that:
a) Leave rules of both the Organisations should contain a specific provision
permitting transfer and acceptance on transfer of the liability for the balance
of earned leave and half-pay leave/sick leave standing to the credit of the
employee on the date of resignation.
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 17 of 29
b) The transferor Organisation arranges with the transferee organisation to
pay to the latter a lumpsum amount equal to the leave salary for the period of
such leave transferred.”
This clause speaks of employees “moving from one public sector enterprise
to the other with the consent of both the Managements” and then declares
that DPE guidelines will be followed, subject to the conditions recorded.
BHEL seeks to read into the policy a unilateral restriction: that leave carry
forward is permitted only for inward movement, not for outward movement.
That restriction does not emerge from the text relied upon.
25. The insistence on a separate “enabling provision” in leave rules
cannot be used as a device to negate the Personnel Manual itself. If the
Manual forms part of the service administration framework, and it states that
DPE guidelines will be followed in the defined class of movements, BHEL
cannot adopt the Manual for administration and then, when the employee
seeks enforcement of the same clause, respond that there is “no provision”.
The Manual clause is itself a provision. It may require operational steps, but
it is not a nullity.
26. The “consent” point requires a proper understanding of CPSE
mobility. A CPSE does not typically “transfer” an employee to another
CPSE in the same manner as inter-departmental Government transfers. The
common mechanism is: employee applies through proper channel, the parent
organisation forwards the application after internal scrutiny, and if selected,
the employee is released on resignation for administrative reasons. That is
precisely what DPE later called “technical formality”.
27. In these circumstances, “consent” of management for movement is
best tested by the parent organisation’s conduct. BHEL forwarded the
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 18 of 29
application through proper channel. It accepted the resignation without
recording any reservation that HPL transfer would not be permitted or that
the employee would lose the benefit as a consequence of the mode of exit. It
relieved the employee to join another Government undertaking. This is not a
case of an employee slipping out in defiance of the employer’s process. The
employer participated in the process and enabled it.
28. BHEL’s attempt to reduce proper-channel forwarding to a mere
“application requirement” misses the point. Proper-channel forwarding is
not a clerical courtesy. It reflects institutional permission for the employee
to compete for the post and, if selected, for the employee to be released
subject to exigencies. That institutional permission is the relevant “consent”
within the CPSE mobility framework.
29. In Mukul Agarwal’s case, this issue is largely academic because his
leave has been transferred. However, this is significant, although it cannot
by itself create a right, contrary to rules. It does demonstrate that BHEL has,
at least once, operationalised the concept of transferring leave liability
outwards to another CPSE (BHEL’s own letter dated 3
rd
November, 2010
remitting a cheque to REC for leave transfer in the case of Pradip Kumar
Das). Further, BHEL’s subsequent description of that act as an “inadvertent
payment” and its attempt to seek refund does not resolve the present dispute.
If the earlier act was consistent with the governing framework, it is not
“inadvertent”. If it was inconsistent, BHEL must show how the present
refusal squares with the Personnel Manual clause and the BPE OM.
30. BHEL’s refusal in Naveen Kumar Gupta’s case is unsustainable in
light of Clause 8.2 of the Personnel Manual read with the BPE Office
Memorandum dated 25
th
January, 1988. The reasoning that there is “no
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 19 of 29
provision” does not grapple with BHEL’s own policy which adopts the DPE
framework for CPSE-to-CPSE movement on consent of both managements.
The leave liability, therefore, must be discharged in the manner
contemplated by the policy, namely by transfer to the transferee organisation
wherever feasible, accompanied by remittance of a lump sum equal to the
leave salary for the period of leave transferred. Where, owing to passage of
time or intervening changes in service, such transfer is not practicable,
BHEL shall discharge the same liability by paying the equivalent leave
salary directly to the employee.
31. In Mukul Agarwal’s case, since the leave has already been transferred
to the transferee organisation, that transfer shall be treated as valid discharge
of the liability and shall not be reopened or sought to be reversed on the
basis of any later view that the transfer was “inadvertent” or erroneous,
particularly where the movement was through proper channel and the
transfer was processed through official communications between the two
CPSEs.
Issue (iii): Pension claim and “technical resignation”
32. BHEL rests on Clause 4.8 of its pension scheme and says resignation
cases are outside eligibility, and therefore there is nothing to transfer. This
clause reads as follows;
“4.8 Severance of service by the employee on account of resignation,
termination, compulsory retirement as a penalty, dismissal / removal because
of disciplinary proceedings, will not be eligible under the Scheme. Cases of
voluntary retirement under specific VRS/VSS scheme, would be examined
separately. However, cases of employees availing Voluntary (premature)
retirement if otherwise eligible for pension, will be covered under BHEL
Employees’ Pension Scheme.”
The Petitioners rely on DPE guidance which recognises that resignation in a
proper-channel selection scenario is a technical formality. They also rely on
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 20 of 29
the nature of the scheme as a defined contribution plan funded by the
company within an identified percentage ceiling.
33. On this aspect, following points are critical:
The meaning of resignation in a public sector mobility setting
33.1 In ordinary private employment, resignation may represent a complete
severance chosen by the employee, often unrelated to public interest. The
CPSE setting is different. When an employee applies through proper channel
to a post in another CPSE or Government undertaking, and the parent
organisation forwards the application and releases the employee on
resignation for administrative reasons, the resignation serves as the legal
form by which movement is effected. The substance is not a repudiation of
service. It is a structured transition within the public sector framework.
Technical resignation is thus a service-law shorthand used mainly in
Government and PSU contexts. It refers to a resignation that is treated as a
technical formality because the employee is moving from one Government
post to another Government post, with proper permission, and the
administrative system requires a “resignation” from the old post to enable
appointment to the new one.
33.2 DPE’s clarification dated 1
st
February, 2017 captures this substance. It
does not invent the practice. It names and defines it. The practice existed
long before the OM, as the earlier DoPT OM on technical resignation and
lien and the public sector movement guidelines show. When a later OM
describes itself as a “clarification”, the Court’s task is to examine whether it
merely explains the meaning of an existing category or creates a new
category. The language of the 1
st
February, 2017 OM points to explanation,
not creation. The same is extracted for ease of reference:
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 21 of 29
“OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject:-Superannuation Benefits Schemes for employees of CPSEs -
clarification regarding Technical Formality
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s OM of
even number dated 21.05.2014 regarding clarification of Pension and
superannuation Medical Benefits Scheme in CPSEs.
2. Para (xvi) of the said OM specifies that in cases of resignation
(excluding resignation covered under “technical formality clause”) and
compulsory retirement, removal, dismissal because of disciplinary
proceedings, the annuity would be based only on member’s contributions, if
any, and interest thereon. However, the meaning of the term ‘Technical
Formality clause’ has not been clarified in the said O.M.
3. Resignations under ‘Technical Formality clause’ includes
resignations in cases where a Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSE)
employee has applied for a post in the same or other CPSE through proper
channel and on selection to the said post, is required to resign the previous
post for administrative reasons. Resignation submitted for other reasons or if
competent authority has not allowed him to forward his application through
proper channel is a resignation and benefit of past service will not be
admissible
4. The above clarification is only for the purposes of Superannuation
Benefits Schemes implemented in CPSEs in light of DPE’s OM dated
26.11.2008 and 21.05.2014 and subsequent DPE guidelines on
Superannuation Benefits Schemes.
5. All the administrative Ministries/Departments are requested to bring
the above to the notice of the CPSEs under their administrative control.”
33.3 BHEL’s principal response is temporal: it says the Petitioner resigned
on 17
th
October, 2015 and therefore cannot rely on the DPE OM dated 1
st
February, 2017. That response is too blunt. A clarification, in law and
administrative practice, ordinarily operates as an exposition of what the
governing framework already contemplated, unless it expressly creates a
new right or confines itself to future cases. The DPE OM dated 1
st
February,
2017 does neither. It records that the scope of “technical formality” had not
been clarified and clarifies it by describing a proper-channel CPSE-to-CPSE
movement which requires resignation for administrative reasons. This
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 22 of 29
reading is also consistent with the subsequent policy direction in the CPSE
wage-revision/superannuation framework, which progressively moved away
from rigid severance-based exclusions and strengthened the continuity
rationale for employees moving within CPSEs. The clarification, therefore,
is a legitimate aid to construing the earlier DPE regime while deciding a
dispute that remained live and was adjudicated by a speaking order in 2018.
33.4 This distinction is decisive in cases like the present where the claim
remained alive through representations and judicial directions. Even if the
Petitioners resigned earlier, the decision on their representations was taken
in 2018. The authority was required to interpret the applicable policy
framework correctly when deciding a live dispute. A later clarification of
meaning is a legitimate aid to interpretation of the very expression which the
2014 OM used.
The interaction between DPE framework and BHEL scheme text
34. BHEL says it adopted a pension scheme as part of wage revision as
per DPE guidelines. The DPE guidelines, particularly the 21
st
May, 2014
OM, contemplate situations of resignation and provide a distinct treatment
for resignations falling under “technical formality”. The scheme text in
BHEL excluding resignation, cannot be read in isolation from the DPE
framework which BHEL says it implemented.
35. The correct harmonisation is this: Clause 4.8 addresses resignation as
a severance in the ordinary sense. It cannot be applied mechanically to
technical formality resignations which are, in substance, a mode of CPSE-
to-CPSE movement through proper channel. To apply the disqualification to
technical formality resignations would defeat the very category recognised
by DPE and would penalise mobility which the Government framework, for
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 23 of 29
good administrative reasons, has historically accommodated.
36. BHEL’s speaking order tries to treat “technical resignation” as
irrelevant on the footing that it is applicable only for superannuation benefits
and not for leave, and in any event pension schemes are different. This line
of reasoning does not engage with the central point: the category of
technical formality is invoked to determine whether resignation is a
disqualifying severance at all. Once the resignation is treated as a technical
formality, it ceases to operate as a disqualification for benefits that are meant
to continue when an employee moves from one CPSE to another.
The “group corpus” argument
37. BHEL also contends that no individual account is maintained under
the scheme and that employees make no contribution, and therefore nothing
can be transferred. This does not justify a complete denial of the claim. The
fact that the scheme operates through a common corpus rather than
individual accounts may affect the manner of computation, but it does not
make it impossible to determine or transfer the benefit attributable to an
employee.
38. This is reinforced by BHEL’s later amendment (effective 1
st
January,
2017) which explicitly contemplates transfer of pension corpus to NPS on
resignation on request. That amendment demonstrates feasibility in
principle. It also reveals that the “no individual account” feature was not an
immutable structural bar. It was a choice which could be adjusted by policy.
BHEL’s stance in 2018 that transfer is “not feasible” because the scheme is
group corpus cannot stand alongside its own later policy allowing transfer to
NPS on resignation.
39. The proper question, therefore, is not feasibility. It is entitlement in
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 24 of 29
the relevant category and, if entitled, the method of quantification and
transfer.
40. BHEL’s reliance on the expression “broadly similar schemes” in the
DPE OM dated 21
st
May, 2014 also does not advance its case. The guideline
does not require that the schemes be identical in structure; it only refers to
broad similarity for the purpose of administrative transfer. The use of the
word “broadly” itself indicates that the condition is one of practical
compatibility rather than strict equivalence. In the present case, the later
amendment to the BHEL scheme permitting transfer of pension corpus to
the NPS demonstrates that a difference in scheme architecture is not, by
itself, a barrier to transfer but a matter capable of administrative adjustment.
Where transfer is administratively feasible, differences in scheme design
cannot by themselves justify a complete denial of the benefit.
Issue (iv): The 1
st
January, 2017 cut-off
41. By a Corporate HR Circular dated 20
th
February, 2021, BHEL
amended Clause 4 of the BHEL Employees’ Pension Scheme with effect
from 1
st
January, 2017. The amendment expanded the categories of
employees eligible for pension under the scheme and, inter alia, brought
resignation within the scope of eligibility and permitted transfer of the
pension corpus on request. As per the 2021 circular, the amendment is
effective from 1
st
January, 2017. BHEL argues that, since the Petitioners
resigned in 2015, they cannot claim the benefit.
42. A cut-off date in wage revision and superannuation schemes is not, by
itself, suspect. Courts do not re-write fiscal policy simply because a date
produces hard cases. However, a cut-off cannot be used as a blanket shield
where the dispute is not about creation of a new benefit but about correct
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 25 of 29
classification under an existing framework.
43. Here, the Petitioners’ case is not “apply the new benefit retroactively
because it is generous”. Their core case is “our resignations were technical
formalities under the CPSE mobility framework, and should not have been
treated as disqualifying severance even under the earlier DPE framework”.
The cut-off therefore does not answer the claim. At best, it shows that BHEL
later broadened eligibility on resignation for separations on or after 1
st
January, 2017. It does not establish that technical formality resignations
before that date were necessarily to be treated as ordinary resignations for all
purposes.
44. Moreover, the dispute was kept alive. Representations were pending.
This Court’s order dated 27
th
April, 2018 required a speaking decision. The
decision maker in 2018 was expected to apply correct interpretive principles.
It was not a closed past transaction being reopened for the first time in 2023.
It was an ongoing dispute in which the authority was called upon to explain
its position.
Relief and moulding
45. The remedies must be workable. For leave, Mukul’s case is resolved.
For Naveen, the passage of time and his later move out of NHDC to another
organisation makes a strict “credit in leave account of transferee” difficult.
A monetary discharge pegged to leave salary, which is the measure used by
the policy framework for transfer of leave liability, is an appropriate course.
46. For pension, the relief must respect the nature of the scheme. A
direction to “release pension as if superannuated” would be wrong. The
correct relief is a direction to compute the pension corpus attributable under
the scheme architecture for the period recognised by the scheme and to
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 26 of 29
transfer that computed corpus to NPS on request, treating the resignation as
technical formality. If actuarial computation is required, it must be
undertaken by the Trust/Fund Manager(s) under the scheme with reasons
and records. BHEL cannot retain the entire benefit as a windfall when the
employee’s exit is within the CPSE mobility framework and the
Government policy recognises continuity benefits in such cases.
FINDINGS
47. The Court records the following findings:
(i) The Petitioners applied through proper channel for posts in
Government of India undertakings/CPSEs. BHEL forwarded their
applications and released them upon selection. Their resignations, in
substance, were resignations as technical formality for administrative
reasons. They fall within the meaning clarified by DPE OM dated 1
st
February, 2017, which is properly read as clarificatory of the category used
in DPE OM dated 21
st
May, 2014.
(ii) In the context of CPSE mobility, BHEL’s attempt to treat proper-
channel forwarding and release as irrelevant to “consent” is artificial. The
relevant consent is institutional permission and facilitation of movement, not
a separate “transfer order” in the Government departmental sense.
(iii) On HPL, BHEL’s refusal in Naveen Kumar Gupta’s case is
unsustainable in light of its Personnel Manual clause 8.2 read with the BPE
OM dated 25
th
January, 1988. The reasoning that there is “no provision”
fails to engage with the internal incorporation of DPE guidelines. The
liability should be discharged by transfer to the transferee organisation
wherever feasible. Where, due to passage of time, transfer is not practicable,
the liability must be discharged by payment of the equivalent leave salary
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 27 of 29
for the relevant period, which is the method the policy uses for discharging
the leave liability.
(iv) On pension, BHEL cannot reject the claim solely by invoking Clause
4.8 as if all resignations are alike. Clause 4.8 must be construed in harmony
with the DPE framework and cannot be applied to technical formality
resignations in a manner that defeats recognised CPSE mobility benefits.
The “group corpus” and “no individual account” structure does not justify a
total refusal. It calls for a method of computation.
(v) The 1
st
January, 2017 cut-off in BHEL’s later amendment does not
defeat the Petitioners’ entitlement where the claim rests on correct
classification as technical formality and on interpretation of the DPE
framework which BHEL asserts it implemented. The cut-off may govern the
new expanded eligibility as a distinct policy layer, but it cannot be used to
deny correct treatment under the earlier framework in a live dispute.
RELIEF
48. The writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated below, by a
common order.
Leave (HPL)
48.1 In W.P.(C) 12110 of 2018 (Mukul Agarwal), the parties state that
HPL has already been transferred to the transferee organisation. No further
direction is required on the leave component. If any consequential
reconciliation remains between the two organisations, it shall be completed
within eight weeks.
48.2 In W.P.(C) 12069 of 2018 (Naveen Kumar Gupta), BHEL shall,
within eight weeks:
(a) ascertain from NHDC whether that organisation will accept
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 28 of 29
transfer/credit of the Petitioner’s HPL balance standing to his credit as on
17
th
October, 2015, in terms of the BPE OM dated 25
th
January, 1988 and
the policy framework reflected in BHEL Personnel Manual clause 8.2; and
(b) if the transferee organisation agrees to accept the transfer/credit,
BHEL shall discharge the leave liability by remitting to that organisation a
lump sum equal to the leave salary for the period of HPL sought to be
carried forward, computed on the basis of the Petitioner’s admissible pay
components as on 17
th
October, 2015, along with an explanatory
computation sheet; and
(c) if the transferee organisation declines, or if such transfer has become
impracticable for reasons beyond the Petitioner’s control due to passage of
time, BHEL shall pay the same computed lump sum directly to the
Petitioner within the same eight-week period.
Pension corpus
49. For both Petitioners, BHEL shall, within six weeks:
(a) treat the Petitioners’ resignations, tendered after proper-channel
selection, as technical formality resignations within the CPSE mobility
framework;
(b) cause the BHEL Employees’ Superannuation Benefit Fund/Trust and
the Fund Manager(s)/Actuary (as the scheme provides) to compute the
notional individual pension corpus attributable to each Petitioner as on the
date of resignation, applying the scheme’s operative formulae and rules as
would be used to determine pension corpus upon prescribed separation, with
service reckoned up to the date of resignation, and with a reasoned
computation note;
(c) transfer the computed corpus to the Petitioner’s NPS account (PRAN)
W.P.(C) 12069/2018 & W.P.(C) 12110/2018 Page 29 of 29
if furnished, or in the alternative, where the Petitioner opts for transfer to the
successor CPSE scheme and that CPSE agrees to accept it, transfer it to such
scheme, subject to regulatory compliances; and
(d) if BHEL contends that any portion cannot lawfully be transferred due
to a specific statutory or trust-deed bar, BHEL shall place on record the
precise clause relied upon, the legal basis for that construction, and a
proposed alternative that ensures the Petitioner is not left remediless, and the
competent authority shall pass a supplementary speaking decision within the
same twelve-week period.
50. The speaking order dated 2
nd
July, 2018 shall stand set aside to the
extent it rejects the claims contrary to the findings recorded in this judgment.
Any fresh decision under clause 59(d) shall be confined to quantification
and modality and shall not re-open entitlement.
51. If BHEL fails to comply within the timelines fixed above, the
amounts payable under clauses 58(c) and 59(c) shall carry simple interest at
the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of default until payment.
52. The petitions are allowed in above terms. Pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MARCH 10, 2026/ hc
Legal Notes
Add a Note....