ivil Appeal No 3693 of 1989
734 From the Judgment and Order dated 232
1989 of Delhi High Court in RSA No 31 of 1989
KS Bindra RK Maheshwari and GS Gujananip for the Appellant
Prem Sunder Jha for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA J
This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit filed by the respondent company against the appellant Municipal Corporation of Delhi for a mandatory injunction to restore the supply of electricity discontinued during the pendency of the suit
Initially the suit was filed for a prohibitory injunction from disconnecting the electric connection
The plaint was amended following stoppage of the supply of energy
According to the plaintiff s case the suit had to be filed as the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking was threatening disconnection without disclosing any reason
Subsequently some officers of the Undertaking made an inspection of the meters and alleged theft of electricity after tampering with the seals affixed on the meters
A First Information Report was lodged with the police
Admittedly no notice was served by the Delhi Elec tricity Supply Undertaking on the plaintiff before severing the electric connection
The learned trial court however dismissed the suit and the plaintiff appealed
The First Additional District Judge Delhi who heard the appeal decreed the suit on the sole ground of nonservice of notice as required under condition No 36 in regard to supply of electricity by the appellant
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant s second appeal at the admission stage by a reasoned judgment
The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in view of the conduct of the plaintiff in stealing electricity the Court should in its discretion refuse to issue a direction for restoration of the electric supply
We are afraid it is not possible to agree with the appellant for more reasons than one
The plaintiff is seriously deny ing the allegation of theft and it is not possible to assume the accusation as correct without a full fledged trial on this issue
The case of Jagarnath Singh vs
BS Ramaswamy   relied upon on behalf of 735 the appellant is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the consumer in that case was convicted under the Indian Penal Code and the conviction was being maintained in appeal
Besides the service of notice is a prerequisite for discon nection and the appellant can not be allowed to go back upon its words and refuse the consumer the benefit of notice as contemplated by the agreement
The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Delhi Electric Supply Undertak ing will seriously suffer if this view is upheld
We do not understand as to what is the difficulty in the way of the appellant to serve a notice on the consumer before discon tinuing the supply
It has to be appreciated that the licen see Undertaking is performing a public duty and is governed by a special statute and the law also contemplates service of a notice before disconnection of supply of electricity
The courts below have made it clear that they have not examined the case on merits
The question whether the allegations of theft are true or not has to be examined and decided in an appropriate proceeding and the appellant will not therefore be prejudiced by the present judgment in its claim
In the result the appeal is dismissed but without costs
PSS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
These writ petitions have been fried by Group C  class III employees of the Railways working in its Transportation Traffic Department
The said Department has different streams eg Control Stream  and Traffic Stream  and the employees working therein have different scales of pay
For purposes of their promotion to Group B posts it was neces sary to fix their inter se seniority as only those employ ees from the different streams could be considered for promotion as would fall within the zone of consideration as per seniority list
As the zone of consideration is deter mined with reference to the number of vacancies in Group B for which selection is held at any point of time the position of the employee in the combined seniority list of all the streams is important
The zone of consideration of the employees for promotion Is fixed in the order of the combined seniority of the employees from the different streams
The Department prior to the implementation of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission fixed the inter se seniority of the employees of Group C employees on the basis of the grade ie employees working In a higher grade on a regular basis were treated senior to those working in the lower grade and the said principle worked well until the enforcement of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commis sion wef
111973 when higher or lower scales of pay came to be fixed in respect of certain posts which were having the same scale of pay upto 31121972
This presented difficulty in fixing the inter se seniority of the employees and the Railway Board in order to resolve the difficulty issued circulars from time to time indicating how their seniority should be fixed but for some reason or the other the dissatisfaction amongst the employees in the matter of seniority continued
Being aggrieved by the experiments which according to the petitioners only resulted in chaos and confusion employees of the Control Stream have flied the writ petition on the Issue of a combined seniority list published by the administration on the basis 451 of instructions on 15685 as they found themselves exclud ed from the panel of staff to be taken into consideration for promotion to Group B They pray that the circular dt 6184 and the follow up action taken culminating in the Selection List be set aside
The petitioner challenge the validity of two circulars issued by the Board one on 29783 and the other on 26121983 restructuring the cadres as discriminatory as according to them they envisage mass upgradation  to their detriment
The question for determination is whether the principle adopted on the strength of these circulars for fixing the inter se seniori ty of these employees is proper
Dismissing the writ petitions with liberty to the Peti tioners to move the Central Administrative Tribunal if so advised with fuller facts this Court HELD The inequity is not apparent
Having to deal with two different streams differently placed the Government has to find out an equitable solution and it has been grop ing towards it
One method would perhaps have been to have fixed quotas for promotion from each of the streams but that is not necessarily the only method
An alternative method is being attempted here and the principle that grades of Rs700 900 and above should be considered together being conceded the Department is trying to give some weightage by granting upgradation to each stream based on its total strength in order to balance the promotional chances in both the streams
It is possible that some individual cases may be affected but no answer to the question whether any class discrimination has resulted can be given unless fuller details are available and the practical impact of the latest position is placed before the Court
463A C