it Petition No 1119 of 1986 etc
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
G Ramaswamy ASG NC Sikri NS Das Bahl BD Sharma Ms Madhu Sikri BW Vaidya RB Misra Ms A Subhashini not present and Dalveer Bhandari for the ap pearing parties
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA J
The first of these applications under article 32 of the Constitution is on behalf of the Delhi Reserve Trained Pool Telephone Operators RTPTOs asking for a direction to the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited to treat all the telephone operators at par after their absorp tion as regular employees
Three letters addressed to the learned Chief Justice of this Court have been treated as writ petitions and are the remaining one under article 32 of the Constitution
The first one 127686 is by the Reserve Trained Pool Telephone Operators of Bombay
They claim the self same relief as asked for in the earlier case the second one 162386 is on behalf of the Reserve Trained Pool Operators in the Department of Posts and they have claimed relief of being placed at par with regular permanent or temporary employees in the matter of service conditions
The third one 162486 is on behalf of substi tute employees and casual labourers in the Department of Posts
They have claimed that substitute employees and casual labourers be paid the same emoluments as regular employees
331 In an earlier Writ Petition No 11764 of 1985 filed by the All India Telegraph Engineering Employees Union Class III of Bombay Telephone where the prayer for treating the Reserve Trained Pool Telephone Operators at par with regular staff had also been asked for this Court made the following order on 15
1986 The matter is adjourned to 287
1986 to enable the newlyadded respondent No 3 to file counter affidavit on or before 157
Rejoinder if any will be filed within one week thereafter
Meanwhile the respondent will pay to the operators drawn from the Reserve Trained Pool of the Telephone Opera tors from Bombay and Delhi Telephones Rs490 per hour provided that the total salary of the Telephone Operators from the Reserve Trained Pool shall not exceed the salary of regularly appointed Telephone Operators
 On 237
1986 this Court in that Writ Petition further ordered The order passed by the Court on 15
1986 shall be final
The wages shall be paid in accordance with the terms contained in that order
We however make it clear that if the Dearness Allowance and other allowances are varied hereafter the workers concerned shall get DA and other allowances accordingly subject to the limit that the total emoluments would not exceed the salary of regularly appointed Telephone Operators
If the peti tioners have any other grievance they are at liberty to agitate
This order will apply to all RTPA employees who are similarly situated
 It is the stand of the respondents that that order of this Court has been implemented with effect from 287
After that was done the RTPTOs of Bombay and Delhi have in their respective Writ Petitions applied for further reliefs as already indicated
According to the petitioners in these two Writ Petitions the RTPTOs are entitled to be brought on par with the regular staff for grant of other service bene fits as they have been performing the same duties as per formed by regular operators
The two petitions have been opposed by the relevant Ministry by filing counter affidavits where the stand taken is that RTPTOs are a special class by themselves with their own incidents of service and they cannot be treated at par with regular employees
The differences between the two services have been highlighted in the counter affidavits
332 It is also the stand of the respondents that the order of this Court referred to above dated 2871986 finally dis posed of the major claim raised in the two petitions of the employees of the two Telephone Nigams and fresh action was not appropriate
It is also pointed out that on 10th of February 1986 there was an agreement of settlement and the present petition was an attempt to reopen the matter
On 311
1989 when Writ Petition No 1276 of 1986 came up for hearing before this Court the following order was made Learned counsel for the petitioners concedes that the regularisation of 21000 employees in the Department of Telecommunications has been effected but complains that no such proceeding has taken place in respect of the postal employees
He states that there is pressing need for a parity of service conditions in cluding pay house rent allowance and other allowances between the temporary employees and the regular employees covered by this catego ry
The learned Additional Solicitor General of India assures us that the scheme will be finalised latest by first week of April 1989 and that complete position will be placed before the Court at that stage   The scheme known as Casual Labourers Grant of Temporary Status in Regularisation Scheme has been formulated and put into operation from 110 1989 and a copy thereof has been placed for our consideration
We find that the scheme is comprehensive and apart from provision for conferment of temporary status it also specifies the benefits available on conferment of such status
Counsel for the respondent Nigams have told us that the scheme will be given full effect and other benefits contemplated by the scheme shall be worked out
In these circumstances no further specific direction is necessary in the two applications relating to the two Nigams of Bombay and Delhi except calling upon the respondents to implement every term of the scheme at an early date
The two remaining writ petitions relate to the Depart ment of Posts
Though an assurance had been held out by the learned Additional Solicitor General that a separate scheme for the postal employees would be prepared and placed before the Court within a time frame that has not been done
At the hearing a note containing tentative proposals and a statement as to what has been done by way of improving the conditions of service have however been placed before the Court
The statement relating to improvements brought about 333 indicates that after April 1986 about seven thousand RTPs have been absorbed
Since the RTP category is no more ex panding only about 2900 of them remain to be absorbed
We have been told by learned counsel for the Department that equal number of justified and supernumerary posts are being created and the Ministry s proposal is in the hands of the Ministry of Finance for approval and is expected to be finalised soon
This has to be done within a time frame
and we direct the posts of both the categories to be created by the end of January 1990 and the process of absorption to be completed by 313
With such absorption made the RTPs will become regular employees
All their claims would thereafter be regulated on the basis of entitlement in accordance with extant rules
So far as the claim of earned leave is concerned we find that Telecommunications Regularisation Rules provide for leave entitlement on pro rate basis one day for every ten days of work
The same benefit would be admissible to the employees of the Department of Posts as we find no reason to adopt a different basis
In National Federation of P  T Employees  Anr
vs Union of India  Anr
  this Court direct ed The Union of India and other respondents are directed to pay wages to the workmen who are employed as casual labourers belonging to the several categories of employees in the Posts and Telegraphs Department at the rates equiva lent to the minimum pay in the pay scales of the regularly employed workers in the corre sponding cadres but without any increments with effect from February 5 1986 on which date the first of the above two petitions namely Writ Petition No 302 of 1986 was filed
The petitioners are entitled to corre sponding dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance if any payable thereon
Whatever other benefits which are now being enjoyed by the casual labourers shall continue to be extended to them 
 It has been stated that in compliance with that direc tion the Department has alredy formulated a scheme for absorption of casual labourers and about a thousand justi fied posts are being created with concurrence of the nodal Ministry
As per existing recruitment rules extra depart mental agents are given preference in the matter of absorp tion as Group D  postmen
Directions have already been issued for their absorption against the vacancies
It has been pointed out 334 again that casual labourers are being paid bonus while substitutes are not entitled under the existing scheme
The other note placed before us at the bearing indicates 1 Justified by necessity posts in Groups C  and D  will be created in the administra tive and operative establishments as per the existing norms for creation of posts in con sultation with the Finance Ministry 2
On creation of the posts recruitment will be done following the existing recruitment rules giving preference to extra departmental agents over casual labourers 3
If on the basis of established norms casual labourers are in excess their services shall be dispensed with in accordance with law and 4
If any casual labourers cannot be re trenched straightaway they shall be paid wages for three months at the existing rates
This tentative scheme does not take into account the several specific claims advanced by the petitioners in the two writ petitions
These are House Rent Allowance City Compensatory Allowance Bonus and Earned Leave
There are also demands for weekly off day postal holiday and materni ty leave
Weekly off has now been given to RTPs casual labourers and substitutes under order of this court and the claim does not survive for adjudication
All these three categories in these two writ petitions are also being given three national Holidays
For the remaining postal holidays the claim has been pressed but we are of the view that until absorption they may not be granted
It has been agreed before us that the claim of bonus may be left to arbitration or for being dealt with by the Consultative Council
As regards House Rent Allowances City Compensatory Allowance and Maternity Leave we see
no justification for treating the employees of the Postal Department differently from those covered under the Regularisation Rules in the Telecommunications Department
Temporary status would be available to the casual labourers in the Postal Department on completion of one year of continuous service with at least 240 days of work 206 days in the case of officers observing five days  week and on conferment of temporary status House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance shall be 335 admissible
There would be no justification to withhold Maternity Leave as that is an obligation of the employer under the law and the State as an ideal employer fulfilling the Directive Principles of State Policy envisaged in Part IV of the Constitution should provide the same
After ren dering three years of continuous service with temporary status the casual labourers shall be treated at par with temporary Grade D  employees of the Department of Posts and would thereby be entitled to such benefits as are admissible to Group D  employees on regular basis
So far as the substitutes are concerned it has been stated to us that orders have been issued for considering their claims against Group D  vacancies and a copy of the Department s letter has been produced
We hope and trust that the direction shall be implemented in its true spirit
The claim on behalf of substitutes ordinarily is not enter tainable but we have been told that there are substitutes who work for long periods continuously
We are inclined to agree with counsel for the petitioners that in such cases their claims should have been appropriately considered by the Department
The writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions without any order as to costs
RNJ Petitions dis posed of


Summary:
The Respondent firm made an application to the appel lantElectricity Board for the supply of 60 KVA electricity and the Board entered into an agreement with the Respondent firm in that behalf and gave electricity connec tion on 1341981
Thereafter the Respondent firm applied for reduction of electricity from 60 KVA to 45 KVA and a fresh agreement was executed on May 2 1981 and fresh con nection of 45 KVA was given on 2951981
It is respondent s case that it had requested the Electricity Board on 1961981 to cut off the Electricity
The firm received Bills for minimum guaranteed charges for four months ie from June to September 1981
The firm refuted its liability to pay the bill on the ground that it consumed no electrici ty during the aforesaid period of 4 months
Consequent upon the firm s failure to pay the Bill the Board disconnected the electricity connection on 2891981
The firm ultimately received a bill for Rs2295150p for the period commencing from June to August 1981
On the firm s failure to pay the Bill the Board sent a requisition to the Certificate Offi cer who sent a notice to the firm on 671981
The Certifi cate Officer rejected the plea of the firm that it was not liable to pay the Bill and proceeded to attach the property of the firm
Being dissatisfied with the action the re spondent firm filed a Writ Petition in the High Court for quashing the bills as also the certificate proceedings
The High Court took the view that the Board itself having disconnected the connection it was not entitled to any charges for the period after September 1981 and it was not open to the Board to contend that under clause 9 of the agreement it was not open to either party to terminate the agreement of minimum guaranteed charges before the expiry of two years from the date of the agreement
The High Court accordingly quashed the bills as well as the certificate proceedings but allowed the charges for July August and September 1981 to be adjusted against the security money
276 The Electricity Board has therefore filed this appeal after obtaining Special Leave
Allowing the appeal this Court HELD A supplyagreement to a consumer makes his rela tion with the Board mainly contractual where the basis of supply is held to be statutory rather than contractual
In cases where such agreements are made the terms are supposed to have been negotiated between the consumer and the Board and unless specifically assigned the agreement normally would have affected the consumer with whom it is made
286D E The agreement was reasonable and valid and it was not determined with the disconnection of supply to the respond ent firm
The liability to pay the minimum guaranteed charges therefore continued till the determination of the contract
The Board was therefore entitled to submit the bills and make the demand on that account and recover the same according to law
285F G