C.W.P.No.21365 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.21365 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 19.12.2008 Kuldip Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Madan Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing Clause (ii) of Sales Circular No.U-21/2005 dated 27.6.2005 (Annexure P-3) and Clause (3) of Sales Circular No.U-40/2005 dated 17.8.2005 (Annexure -P-4) whereby it has been stated that the Scheme is not applicable to the Nigam employees and the employees of UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL and its retirees respectively. It is the submission of the petitioner that he is an agriculturist and is having agricultural land in village Igra, Tehsil and District Jind which is being irrigated through a tubewell connection granted to him by the UHBVNL. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1960 with the Haryana State Electricity Board, which has now been named as UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL. The petitioner continued working C.W.P.No.21365 of 2008 -2- there and after obtaining promotions, retired on 30.9.2007 as Junior Engineer on attaining the age of superannuation. Pursuant to his retirement, he is earning his livelihood from agricultural land which is being irrigated from the tubewell connection bearing Account No.KSR-I. Due to loss of agricultural production, the petitioner could not pay the electricity bill in time as a result whereof the amount of the bill has increased after adding surcharge and other consumption charges of every month. The Government of Haryana reviewed/assessed the position of farmers in a particular area where the farmers have been suffering losses of their crops and were not able to pay the electricity bills. The Government took a decision on 30.7.2003 to grant some concession to such defaulters where total defaulting amount of the entire village is Rs.50 lacs or more pertaining to domestic/non-domestic and agricultural power consumers due to default of consumers residing in the villages. The village of the petitioner also falls within the defaulting category and was, therefore, covered by the policy dated 30.7.2003 (Annexure P-1) and the villagers were also entitled to the benefit flowing therefrom. Thereafter, the respondent-Department has issued another policy dated 25.10.2004 (Annexure P-2) which has subsequently been replaced by a new policy issued on 27.6.2005 (Annexure P-3). This policy dated 27.6.2005 (Annexure P-3) vide which benefit has been given to the defaulting consumers in the rural areas, the same is applicable only in respect of rural domestic and agriculture categories of consumers. Further, sub-clause (ii) has been added wherein it has been mentioned that the Scheme is not applicable to Nigam employees. Accordingly, a clarification was sought from the respondents by the C.W.P.No.21365 of 2008 -3- subordinate office on this sub-clause (ii) and in response thereto, policy dated 17.8.2005 (Annexure P-4) has been issued wherein it has been mentioned that the Scheme is not applicable to the employees/retirees of the UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL. The petitioner is aggrieved and is challenging Clause (ii) of Sales Circular No.U-21/2005 dated 27.6.2005 (Annexure P-3) wherein it has been mentioned that the Scheme is not applicable to Nigam employees. The petitioner has further challenged the Sales Circular No.U-40/2005 dated 17.8.2005 (Annexure P-4) Clause (3) which says “the Scheme is not applicable to the employees of the UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL and its retirees. It is the contention of the petitioner that these clauses in the above-mentioned Circulars are in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India where equally situated persons have been discriminated against and no equal protection has been provided by the respondent-Department. It is the submission of the petitioner that the employees and retirees of other Departments of the Government have full right to get the benefit of the policies, Annexures P-3 and P-4 but the employees of UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL and its retirees have been excluded from the benefit of the said Circular letters, and the said discrimination made amongst the employees is not reasonable without any logic. No rationale therefore, can be said to have been put-forth which could justify the leaving out/excluding the employees of the Nigam and UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL and its retirees. Therefore, the said policy deserves to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. C.W.P.No.21365 of 2008 -4- It has been contended by the petitioner in the petition that the respondent-Department has accepted that village Igra to which the petitioner belongs and has his land in the said revenue area, is a defaulting village with an amount of pending electricity bills of more than Rs.50 lacs as mentioned in the policy. It is further admitted by the respondent- Department that the policy covers the consumers of the village Igra, Tehsil and District Jind, but simply because the petitioner is a retiree from the Nigam, he has been deprived of the benefit of the said Policy although the employees/retirees of other Departments of the Government have been granted the same benefit who belong to the said village Igra. The petitioner is similarly situated as the other employees of other Departments either working or retirees, and as a retiree he is earning his livelihood from the agricultural land. By putting in this artificial discrimination between the employees, the rationale and the object which is sought to be achieved by framing the policy, is itself violated by incorporating such clauses as has been challenged by the petitioner which are discriminatory in nature merely on the basis of the petitioner being a retiree of the Nigam. We have heard counsel for the petitioner who has put-forth his argument as has been asserted by the petitioner in the writ petition referred to above. On the first flash, the argument as put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner appears to be attractive where he states that discrimination has been made in the impugned circulars between the employees/retirees of Nigam, UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL and employees/retirees of other Government Departments. It appears as if employees as a category have been discriminated against when it comes to the C.W.P.No.21365 of 2008 -5- employees/retirees of the Nigam and UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL but we are afraid, the same cannot be taken as a basis to quash a condition imposed in a decision merely on the basis that it excludes a particular category of employees working in a particular Department. The intention of the Scheme which has been put- forth by Sale Circular No.U-21/2005 dated 27.6.2005 (Annexure P-3) is to inculcate the habit of regular payment of bills. The purpose behind the Scheme is that the defaulters should be encouraged to pay the bills of their electricity charges on regular basis so that the chronic default on the part of the consumers can be brought to an end. What has been sought to be done through the policy is that if the consumers continue to pay their current bills regularly, no further surcharge shall be added on the arrears of the bills. The actual arrears in respect of the consumers who enter the Scheme will neither be increased nor decreased, but the waiver of the surcharge is subject to regular payment of bills for the next 20 months and the total adjustment is to be given at the end of said period of 20 months. The paying consumers are eligible for a waiver of 5% of their arrears (principal + surcharge) with each monthly payment for monthly billing of agricultural category and waiver of 10% of their arrears (principal + surcharge) with each bi-monthly payment for bi-monthly billing for rural domestic category. If the consumer defaults in making payment even for a single month in between, then whatever benefit of waiver he has earned upto that time, would be denied to him. The arrears would be unfrozen and calculated again on the amount pending on 16.6.2005. The intention, therefore, is that apparently the incentive and the waiver is based on the regular payment of bills. C.W.P.No.21365 of 2008 -6- The rationale, therefore, for excluding the employees/retirees of the UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL is that the cleansing and disciplining process should start from one's own house itself and is based on the principle of practice before you preach. If the employees/retirees of the Nigam or UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL do not lead by example by paying the electricity bills on time, the Department itself would not be in a position to ask the employees of other departments and the general public to make regular payments of the bills. It does not behove and lie in the mouth of the employees/retirees of the Nigam or UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL to say that they will not pay the bills or they were not paying the bills regularly. In any case, it is upto the respondent-Department to frame its own policies and they are the best judges while framing the same, so as to come to a conclusion as to which category of consumers deserve and require benefit of a particular Scheme as that would depend upon various factors which the Department takes into consideration while formulating a policy. In the present case, as has been held, there is a justifiable rationale behind not forwarding the benefit of the Scheme to the employees/retirees of Nigam and UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL. However, we may clarify here that the acceptance of the exclusion of the employees/retirees of Nigam and UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL under the impugned schemes, shall not be taken as if the policy as framed by the respondent-Department stands approved by this Court. This decision is limited to the extent of the challenge to the clauses under challenge on the touch-stone of Article 14 qua a particular category alone. We leave it open for the Court to test the C.W.P.No.21365 of 2008 -7- legality of the Policy issued under Sale Circular No.U-21/2005 dated 27.6.2005 and Sale Circular No.U-40/2005 dated 17.8.2005 as a whole in an appropriate case. This petition is dismissed with the above observations. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE JUDGE December 19, 2008 poonam Whether referred to Reporters. Yes/No.