Case: Prahlad Sharma Vs. State Of U.P.

and provisions relating to the government employees could not be applicable to those employees. In paragraph 10 of the judgment it is held as follows: ".... We must, therefore, hold that the corporation which is Hindustan Steel Limited in this case is not a department of the Government nor are the servants of it holding posts under the State. It has its independent existence and by law relating to Corporations it is distinct even from its members." It was also observed that even though a corporation may be completely owned by the government or the directors may be appointed by the President of India, nevertheless in the eye of the law the company was a separate entity and had a separate legal existence. 9. The other decision which has been referred by the learned counsel for the appellant is reported in 1994 Supp.(3) SCC 385, Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd. and Anr. vs. Employees Union and Another. In this case, in the appointment letter which was issued to the seasonal employees, it was specified therein that their conditions of service shall be governed by Model Standing Orders. Some of the provisions of the Model Standing Orders provided for making the services of some categories of employees permanent. The seasonal employees also claimed the same benefit. It has been held that it was incorrect to say that all the Model Standing Orders would be applicable to the seasonal employees. It has been observed that the Model Standing Orders would be applicable to the seasonal employees mutatis-mutandis. It is further observed that the Model Standing Order No.4-B in particular, will be inapplicable to the seasonal employees because of the very nature of their employment and hence it could not be read into service conditions of the seasonal employees even though it was mentioned in their letter of appointments that they shall be governed by the provisions of the Model Standing Orders. It was further held that only such conditions of service would be applicable which could be applied to the seasonal employees and not the other conditions. It has also been observed that the Model Standing Orders would be applicable to the seasonal employees mutatis-mutandis. 10. The expression mutatis-mutandis, itself implies applicability of any provision with necessary changes in points of detail. The rules which are adopted, as has been done in the present case, make the principles embodied in the rules applicable and not the details pertaining to particular authority or the things of that nature. In the present case, we find that the High Court has found that the U.P. Rules of 1999 have been adopted mutatis-mutandis. Therefore, in our view, the revisional power which has been vested in the state government in respect of the employees of the state may be exercisable by an authority parallel or corresponding thereto in the Corporation in regard to employees of the Corporation. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the revision was filed before the state government prior to the resolution dated 10.7.2001 by which U.P. Rules of 1999 have been adopted by the corporation. On that ground also, the state government had no power to interfere in the matter since the appeal had already been decided in the year 2000 which order had become final before adoption of U.P. Rules of 1999. It is also submitted that since it is provided under rule 13 of the U.P. Rules of 1999 that the revisional powers would be exercisable in respect of the orders passed under the U.P. Rules of 1999 also leads to the interference that they are prospective in nature and would not be applicable to the orders which have not been passed under the U.P. Rules of 1999. We, however, find no substance in this submission as learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to the resolution dated February 16, 1991 passed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation. The office order dated February 16, 1991 in relation to the decision of the Board of Directors of the Corporation as taken on 21.6.1990 vide resolution no. 7 is quoted below: "24(A) Disciplinary action, suspension and subsistence allowance, payment related rules and orders of the U.P. Government will be applicable on officers and employees of the Corporation." In pursuance of the above noted resolution rule 24-A was substituted in Chapter I of General Service Regulations of 1984 of the Corporation. Rule 24-A, as substituted, reads as under: "24(A) Disciplinary action, suspension and subsistence allowance payment related rules and orders of the U.P. Government will be applicable on officers and employees of the Corporation." In view of the decision of the Board of Directors and the resolution and later on as a consequence thereof substitution of Rule 24-A in the General Service Regulations of 1984 of the Corporation, it is clear that the rules as applicable to the employees of the U.P. Government, in the matters relating to disciplinary action, suspension or subsistence allowance etc. were made applicable to the employees of the Corporation. It appears that since for the employees of the state government some new rules were promulgated namely, the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, a second resolution was passed on 10.7.2001 specifically incorporating those rules for the purposes of disciplinary matters against the employees of the Corporation. In this light of the matter of question of giving retrospective effect to the U.P. Rules of 1999 does not arise. We feel that even if no specific resolution was passed for incorporation of U.P. Rules of 1999 shall be available in respect of the employees of the Corporation is erroneous and not sustainable. The High Court abruptly formed the opinion without examining the question at all.12. We, however, need not go into the question, as sought to be raised, as to who would be an authority parallel or corresponding to the state government in the Corporation to whom a revision may lie, since it is not involved in this case.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]Incumbent of such officers may even though some times be Govt. servants on deputation but while working as a Chairman or the Managing Director or any authority in the organization or the corporation, they would not be subordinate to the government. It is again to be noticed that then perhaps the right to invoke the revisional powers may be available only to the concerned government servant as provided under rule 13 and may not be available to the employee of the corporation.Therefore, it is submitted and in our view, rightly, that adoption of rules are implemented in a manner as they fit in the structure of the adopting organization and not as a straight jacket application to the adopting organization. It has also been pointed out that according to the provisions of the rule 13, as it is, an order can be subjected to the revisional power of the State only if the order has been passed in exercise of any power conferred under rules of 1999. It is submitted that the orders passed by the Managing Director or the Chairman cannot be said to be orders passed under the U.P. Rules of 1999 and not under the rules as adopted by the Corporation.s, itself implies applicability of any provision with necessary changes in points of detail. The rules which are adopted, as has been done in the present case, make the principles embodied in the rules applicable and not the details pertaining to particular authority or the things of that nature. In the present case, we find that the High Court has found that the U.P. Rules of 1999 have been adoptedTherefore, in our view, the revisional power which has been vested in the state government in respect of the employees of the state may be exercisable by an authority parallel or corresponding thereto in the Corporation in regard to employees of theview of the decision of the Board of Directors and the resolution and later on as a consequence thereof substitution of Rulein the General Service Regulations of 1984 of the Corporation, it is clear that the rules as applicable to the employees of the U.P. Government, in the matters relating to disciplinary action, suspension or subsistence allowance etc. were made applicable to the employees of the Corporation. It appears that since for the employees of the state government some new rules were promulgated namely, the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, a second resolution was passed on 10.7.2001 specifically incorporating those rules for the purposes of disciplinary matters against the employees of the Corporation. In this light of the matter of question of giving retrospective effect to the U.P. Rules of 1999 does not arise. We feel that even if no specific resolution was passed for incorporation of U.P. Rules of 1999 shall be available in respect of the employees of the Corporation is erroneous and not sustainable. The High Court abruptly formed the opinion without examining the question at all.12. We, however, need not go into the question, as sought to be raised, as to who would be an authority parallel or corresponding to the state government in the Corporation to whom a revision may lie, since it is not involved in this case.