T. S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby WP (C) No. 4415/2003 filed by Respondent No. 1 has been allowed and the impugned office order relieving the petitioner employee to join the respondent NDPL for absorption quashed. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition may be summarised as under :- ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 was employed with the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board as a Junior Work Mistry on work charge basis for a period of six months. That period was extended from time to time and according to the appellants, the last of these extensions was up to 4th January, 2004, although no formal order to that effect has been placed on record. ( 3 ) CONSEQUENT upon the enactment of Delhi Electricity Reform Act, 2000, the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board was wound up to be replaced by six new entities, namely, Delhi Power Supply Company Ltd. (TRANSCO), Indraprastha Power generation Company Ltd. (GENCO), Central-East Delhi Electricity Distribution company Ltd. (DISCOM 1), South-West Delhi Electricity Distribution Company limited (DISCOM 2), North-West Delhi Distribution Company Limited (DISCOM 3) and delhi Power Company Limited. The staff working with the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut board was to stand allocated and absorbed in the new entities in terms of Delhi electricity Reforms (Transfer Schemes) Rules, 2001. Rule 6 of the said Rules, inter alia, provided that with effect from the date of transfer, the personnel working in the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board would stand transferred to and absorbed in GENCO, TRANSCO and DISCOMS as the case may be in accordance with a government order dated 15th November, 2001. ( 4 ) IN terms of Rule 9 of the Rules aforementioned, the Government was competent to amend or vary the terms and conditions of such transfer within a period of three months from the date of transfer. This meant that the government could exercise the said power only up to 30th September, 2002. That is precisely what the Government did in terms of an order dated 30th September, 2002 which incidently was the last date on which the power of amendment could be exercised. By the said order, the Government removed certain discrepancies and anomalies in the matter of allocation of the employees of the erstwhile DVB to the new entities. That is precisely what the Government did in terms of an order dated 30th September, 2002 which incidently was the last date on which the power of amendment could be exercised. By the said order, the Government removed certain discrepancies and anomalies in the matter of allocation of the employees of the erstwhile DVB to the new entities. Annexure-5 to the said order enlisted the names of employees being absorbed in the new entities. Respondent No. 1 figured at Sl. No. 13 in the said list for absorption in Respondent No. 2, the Company created for the North west Region. ( 5 ) IT is common ground that Respondent No. 1 was not relieved from the place of his posting to report to Respondent No. 2 for absorption. The result was that he was not taken on rolls by the said respondent. He continued to work in Indraprastha Power Generation Limited and Pragati Power Corporation Limited till 18th June, 2003 when he was eventually relieved of his charge with a direction to report to Respondent No. 2, NDPL. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed WP (C) No. 4415/2003 in this Court, inter alia, for a writ of certiorari quashing the said order and a mandamus directing the appellants herein to continue him on duty. The petition was contested by the appellants herein, among others, on the ground that the petitioner had already been allocated to Respondent NDPL in terms of Government Order dated 30th September, 2002 in the light whereof the petitioner could work only with NDPL for which purpose he stood relieved from his duties on 19th June, 2003. A counter affidavit was filed by the NDPL also which was subsequently added as a party respondent to the said petition, inter alia, pointing out that the petitioner had not reported to the said Company nor was he working in the area allotted to it. It was further asserted that the dispute relating to the petitioner s services or and continuance, could be agitated only under the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. ( 6 ) VIKRAMAJIT Sen J. , before whom the petition came up for hearing, allowed the petition by the order impugned before us. It was further asserted that the dispute relating to the petitioner s services or and continuance, could be agitated only under the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. ( 6 ) VIKRAMAJIT Sen J. , before whom the petition came up for hearing, allowed the petition by the order impugned before us. The Court held that since the interim order passed by the Court on 15th July, 2003 had not been vacated or modified nor any request for its vacation made by the respondents to the writ petition, the writ petitioner had continued to be in the employment of respondent No. 3, Pragati Power Corporation Ltd. The Court further held that since the respondent NDPL was not ready to accept the petitioner employee, he was entitled to continue in the employment of its earlier employer. ?the employee should not be made to go from pillar to post exhorting the continuance of his employment?, observed the Court. The petition was, on those findings, allowed, as already noticed earlier, and office order dated 18th June, 2003 transferring the writ petitioner to join NDPL for further posting quashed. The present appeal assails the correctness of the said order. ( 7 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The material facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the respondent employee was working on work charge basis with the appellants and that his engagement, though valid only for six months initially, had been extended from time to time. According to the averments made in para 1 of the Memo of Appeal, the initial engagement stood extended upto 4th January, 2004 Although there is no formal order extending the engagement of the employee up to 4th January, 2004 except a proposal submitted to the Director (Technical), yet the circumstances discernible from the record do suggest that such an extension was granted or can be assumed. The last extension about which there is no dispute was admittedly upto 4th January, 2003 but continuance in employment of the petitioner and payment of salary for the work done by him till June 2003 clearly signifies that the work charge employment had continued beyond 4th January, 2003. In the absence of anything to the contrary, we are inclined to hold that the engagement stood extended upto 4th January, 2004 as had been proposed in the note referred to above. In the absence of anything to the contrary, we are inclined to hold that the engagement stood extended upto 4th January, 2004 as had been proposed in the note referred to above. ( 8 ) IT is also not in dispute that the employee s name was included in the order dated 30th September, 2002 for his allocation and absorption in the respondent NDPL, even when he did not figure in the initial Government Order dated 15th November, 2001. That order was doubtless in exercise of the statutory powers vested in the Government under which it could transfer and allocate for absorption the employees working in DVB to one of the new entities. The validity of this order was not assailed by the petitioner employee in the writ petition at any stage nor is it under challenge before us. The net result, therefore, is that the employee stood transferred for absorption in NDPL. The fact that the petitioner employee did not join the new entity in pursuance of the above order is also admitted. The justification given is that the petitioner employee was not relieved from his duties to enable him to join the new employer. ( 9 ) MR. Nandrajog made a two-fold submission before us. In the first place, he submitted that the petitioner employee s engagement was valid only till 4th January, 2004 which meant that as on date, there was no authorisation in his favour for his continuance as a work charge employee. Since the new entities were supposed to take over the employees of the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut board on as is where is basis, there could be no improvement in the status of such employees even after their transfer. In other words, a work charge employee would continue to be a work charge employee even in the new entity after his transfer. In cases where the period of work charge engagement stood terminated by lapse of time, argued the learned counsel, there was no subsisting right in the employee that could be enforced against the new entity. Secondly, he contended that the writ petition did not make any prayer for a mandamus against ndpl. There was, therefore, no question of granting any relief to the petitioner employee against NDPL. Secondly, he contended that the writ petition did not make any prayer for a mandamus against ndpl. There was, therefore, no question of granting any relief to the petitioner employee against NDPL. ( 10 ) THE impugned office order has to be seen in the backdrop of the facts to which we have referred in the earlier paras of this order. All that the said order purports to do is to relieve the petitioner with the direction that he should report to NDPL for further posting. That direction obviously has its genesis in the statutory order of absorption and allocation made by the government on 30th September, 2002. There is no gainsaying that so long as the order by which the Government had allocated the petitioner employee to NDPL remains unchallenged, there is no question of challenging the order that relieved him from his charge and directed him to report to the new employer. That is precisely how the matter ought to be looked at. If we do so, all that emerges is that there was some delay in the petitioner employee reporting for duty with the new employer. The question however is whether delay should by itself prevent the petitioner employee from joining the new employer. Our answer is in the negative. We say so because there is no provision either in the absorption scheme or the enactment under which the petitioner would lose his right to seek absorption despite an order of allocation made in his favour only because there was some delay in reporting for duty with the new employer. That is particularly so when the delay was not attributable to the petitioner and was substantially, if not wholly, referable to the failure of the erstwhile employer who did not relieve him of his duties. ( 11 ) ON behalf of the petitioner employee, it was argued that the absence of a prayer for an appropriate relief did not prevent this Court from moulding the relief suitably and doing complete justice to the parties especially when the need for grant of an alternative relief arose out of the view which the court was taking in regard to the primary relief claimed by the petitioner. As regards the expiry of the period of engagement, it was contended that as on the date, the petitioner was relieved of his duties to join NDPL, the work charge engagement was still subsisting. If instead of filing a writ petition in this court, the petitioner had reported to NDPL, he would have joined his duties in that Company in which event he would have been treated in the same manner in which others similarly situate were treated. Mr. Saini argued that the petitioner employee was ready to give up his claim for payment of arrears of salary both against the appellants herein as also against NDPL to enable this court to mould the relief suitably without the employee taking any undue advantage of the situation. ( 12 ) THERE is considerable merit in the submission made by Mr. Saini. As on 19th June, 2003 when the petitioner employee was relieved of his duties and asked to report to NPL, his engagement as a work charge employee was still in subsistence. Instead of rushing to this Court with a petition and obtaining an order staying his transfer, he could have reported to NDPL. The latter could not have refused to entertain his request especially when he had been validly allocated to the said Company and the work charge engagement was still in subsistence. Just because the petitioner employee had filed a petition in this court, should not place him at a disadvantage. The petitioner employee shall have to be relegated to the position which he would have held on the date he approached this Court and obtained an order of interim stay. ( 13 ) IN so far as the absence of a prayer against NDPL is concerned, we are of the view that the refusal of the relief prayed for by the petitioner employee does not mean that a lesser relief which the petitioner may otherwise be found entitled to, cannot be granted to him. The petitioner had come to this Court seeking his continuance with the appellants. Since that relief cannot, in our opinion, be granted to him in the light of the order of allocation and absorption dated 30th September, 2002, there is no impediment in moulding the relief suitably to grant to the employee what is found due to him. The petitioner had come to this Court seeking his continuance with the appellants. Since that relief cannot, in our opinion, be granted to him in the light of the order of allocation and absorption dated 30th September, 2002, there is no impediment in moulding the relief suitably to grant to the employee what is found due to him. That is especially so when the relief simply relegates the parties to the position which they held on the date the petitioner was relieved and no more. In order to show his bona fides, the petitioner employee has given up his claims for payment of wages against the appellants herein as also against the NDPL. Even otherwise, since the petitioner employee had not worked during the period from 18th June, 2003 onwards and since his prayer for continuance in the employment of the appellants is untenable, we see no justification for granting any salary or wages. In the totality of the above circumstances, therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge and dispose of the writ petition and the present appeal with the following directions :-i) The prayers made by the petitioner for continuance in the employment of the appellants and payment of back wages shall stand rejected and the writ petition to that extent dismissed. ii) The petitioner employee shall be free to join respondent NDPL within a period of one month from the date of this order in which event the respondents shall entertain the joining report of the petitioner and allow him to join his duties. iii) The respondent NDPL shall be free to pass an appropriate order regarding the petitioner s continuance in service on work charge basis or any other capacity as though the said order was being made on 19th June, 2003 when the petitioner was relieved to join NDPL. The petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in employment of NDPL till 4th January, 2004, but shall not be entitled to claim back wages for that period. The order which NDPL may pass shall therefore relate only to the period post 4th January, 2004iv) If NDPL decides to continue the petitioner in employment beyond 4th january, 2004, he shall not claim any back wages for the period during which he has not actually worked with that company. The order which NDPL may pass shall therefore relate only to the period post 4th January, 2004iv) If NDPL decides to continue the petitioner in employment beyond 4th january, 2004, he shall not claim any back wages for the period during which he has not actually worked with that company. v) Against the order which NDPL may make in terms of (iii) above, the petitioner employee shall be free to seek appropriate redress in appropriate proceedings. vi) Parties shall bear their own costs in the writ petition and in this appeal. .