IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.847 of 2011 (Arising out of order and judgment dated 11.3.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1495/2011) 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board through Secretary Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna………………….Appellant-Respondents. Versus 1. Krishna Nandan Choudhary, son of Sri Jaganath Choudhary resident of village-Bhatandia, Post Office-Gidha, Police Station- Saraiya District- Muzaffarpur…….Respondent-Petitioner-1st set. 2. State of Bihar …………………….Respondent-Respondent-2nd set. For the Appellant : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha,Sr. Advocate Mr. Anand Kr. Ojha. For the Intervener : Mr. Amrendra Kumar Sinha No. 1, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh No. 1, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Sikha Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Adv. ----------------- 2. 25.8.2011 Heard the parties. The writ petitioner who is the sole respondent herein had prayed for quashing order dated 30.11.2010 by which the two additional increments granted to him for having passed Certificate Course on Computer Concepts (hereinafter referred to as C.C.C.) has been withdrawn with immediate effect. The Writ Court has taken note of the policy decision of the appellant Board under which the Board decided to recruit in future only such personnel who have computer knowledge. It was also decided to hold a test by 31.3.2002 for those employees who were below the age of 50 years as on 01.04.2000, with a view to grant one time incentive of Rs. 2,000/- each to those who could clear the test in computer literacy. Subsequently, the scheme was modified, permitting the employees to apply directly to an autonomous society which was to hold the computer 2 literacy test and those who passed the test were granted benefit of two additional increments. The Board by the impugned order decided to withdraw two additional increments granted to the writ petitioner pursuant to a policy decision to that effect. The Writ Court has considered the rival submissions and held that the Board having made a representation to its employees like the petitioner and they having changed their position on that basis and having made extra efforts for availing the benefit, it is not open to the Board to hold that the benefit was of the nature which could be withdrawn any time as per its will. Learned counsel for the appellant Board has submitted that the normal principles governing service jurisprudence permit an employer to change service conditions unilaterally and if the change is on account of decision by the competent authority, it cannot be held bad on the principle of promissory estoppel. There is no difficulty in accepting the first part of the aforesaid contention, the State or any Public Sector Undertaking is competent to unilaterally alter the service condition of its employees and can do it with retrospective effect also but the law is well settled that such provisions must pass the test of reasonableness as emanating from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court has made this position amply clear in a recent judgment in the case of J.S. Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (2011) 6 SCC 570. Paragraphs 20 and 24 of the said judgment emphasize that whenever provisions are made with retrospective effect so as to take away vested rights, the Courts generally dis-favour such provisions unless they pass the test of 3 reasonableness and are held not to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16. In the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and another (2008) 2 SCC 777, the Apex Court was dealing with the premature withdrawal of an incentive. In paragraph 30 of the judgment it has been held as follows:- “Para 30- “In the present case, the U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 came into force with effect from 2000. Therefore, if such benefit has not been extended then a different stand will follow but so far as the delegated legislation is concerned, this kind of revocation cannot be sustained. It is highly against the public morality that the incumbent who have felt persuaded on account of the representation made by the State Government that they will be given certain benefits and they acted on that representation, it does not behove on the part of the appellant Corporation to withdraw the said benefit before expiry of the stipulated period by issuing the notification revoking the same which the respondents were legitimately entitled to avail. We fail to understand why the appellant Corporation which made a representation and allowed the other party to act upon such representation could resile and leave the citizens in a lurch. In such a situation a principle of promissory estoppel which has been evolved by the courts which is based on public morality cannot permit the State to act in such an arbitrary fashion.” In view of apparent similarity on facts, we are 4 constrained to adopt the same view. For depriving the petitioner of the two additional increments granted as incentive under a scheme would be against morality and they are arbitrary and unreasonable. Hence, without doubting the general competence and power of the appellant Board to lay down service condition of its employees, in the facts of the case, we find no reason to take a view other than of the Writ Court. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant on the basis of a judgment reported in (2010) 1 SCC 417, Amarjit Singh Vs. Devi Ratan, that because the writ petitioner did not challenge the policy decision taken by the Board as a resolution, no interference should be made with the impugned order which is only a consequential order. In the case of Amarjit Singh (supra) promotion orders granting promotions with different dates, were issued in different batches and seniority had to flow as a consequence from such promotion. The aggrieved employees had chosen not to challenge the promotions given from different dates and yet they challenged the gradation list on the basis of such unchallenged promotion. In that back ground, the Apex Court held that having chosen not to challenge the promotions given from different dates, the gradation list prepared as a consequence could not be successful assailed. In the present case an employee of the Board such as the writ petitioner has no concern with the resolution or policy decision which the Board may take in meetings. It is only due to the consequential order like the one under challenge, when it is communicated or brought to the notice of the employee, he gets cause of action to challenge such an order. In such a situation, the employee cannot be burdened with the liability to find out 5 policy decisions in the files and records of the employer in order to challenge the orders which are issued and affect him adversely. As a result, we find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Mkc/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)