Case: Hydro-Electric Employees Union,U.P Vs. Sudhir Kumar Sharma

This batch of cases are directed against two sets of judgments of Allahabad High Court dealing with the question of amalgamation of the posts of Meter Readers,Operators and Switch Board Attendants under the U.P. State Electricity Board. One batch of cases deal with the judgments delivered by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court dated 22.8.95, setting aside the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 29.9.1994 and allowing the writ petitions filed by some of the Meter Readers. At that point of time no Regulation had been framed by the Board under Section 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Supply Act") and the service conditions of the employees of the Board was being determined by issuance of administrative instructions from time to time.The second batch of cases deal with the constitutionality of the Regulation framed by the Board under Section 79(c) of the Supply Act and the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 11.7.1997 holds the Act to be intra vires. Some of the SLPs have been filed by the employees who were not parties before the High Court but have been permitted to file the Special Leave Petitions by this Court and as such are before us.From the pleading of the parties before the High Court and the documents available on record it transpires that the Board has taken the decision as early as in May 1963 that there will be a combined cadre of Meter Readers, Sub Station Operators and Switch Board Attendants and the services of these three categories of employee will be interchangeable. The aforesaid decision of the Board was modified by Boards decision dated 24.3.1977 whereunder the posts of Junior Meter Tester/Junior Meter Tester and Repairer were also included in the said combined cadre and it was stipulated therein that the services of these categories of employees shall be interchangeable. Some of the employees being aggrieved by the aforesaid combined categorisation of the posts moved the High Court of Allahabad by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2462 of 1975 and batch, which matter was dismissed by the High Court by judgment and order dated 28th September, 1977. It was clearly stated in the aforesaid judgment of the High Court that it is open to the Board to create a combined cadre of service consisting of all those posts which may be in the same grade and qualification as well as status are similar and the Board had indicated that the qualification for the three category of posts of Meter Readers, Sub Station Operators and Switch Board Attendants are almost the same and as a matter of policy the Board decided to have a combined cadre of these categories of posts. The High Court held that there has been no contravention of any law in combing the aforesaid posts into one cadre. When the Board issued its Memorandum dated 24.3.1977 including one more category of posts of Junior Meter Tester in the combined cadre, another batch of Writ Petitions came to be filed being Writ Petition No. 1348 of 1977 and batch which were disposed of by judgment and order dated 12.3.1979. It was held in this case that as a matter of policy it is open for the employer to integrate various cadre into one and there is no fetter on the power of the Board to integrate such cadres. The High Court also looked into the factual position and found that the transfer from one class of posts to another in the four categories does not involve any risk of life as contended by the petitioner. Ultimately the Writ Petitions filed stood dismissed. Though the posts, as aforesaid, were grouped together and formed one cadre and the holders of the posts could be interchanged, but on account of certain pressure from some of the employees the Board issued a direction on 20th October, 1975 that the interchangeability of incumbents should not be resorted to until further orders. By yet another order issued by the Board on 19th October, 1985 the earlier ban onof the incumbents to the posts of the Meter Readers and others was reiterated. The question ofof the posts which had been kept under abeyance wasand it was decided that the policy ofshould be enforced strictly. The Boards Resolution in this respect is manifest from its decision dated 2.3.1994.The aforesaid resolution of the Board is extracted hereinbelow in extensodiscussion took place in respect ofof posts amongst MRs, SSOs and SBOs. The Board granted approval on the aforesaid proposal of6. Pursuance to the aforesaid Resolution of the Board the Director [Personnel] by his dated 9th May, 1994 intimated all the Chief Engineers of UP State Electricity Board as undersupersession of the Order No. 899/NG [ii]/S.E.B.N.G/83 dated 24.3.77, No.4 NG/72 dated 20.10.82 and No. 4837/K.Nineth3 dated 19.10.85, I am directed to say that in accordance with the terms of the Boards Order No. 2573/S.E.B.207/1963 dated 29.5.63 declaring combined cadre of Meter Readers, S.S.Os. and S.B.As. [at present S.B.Os.], mutualbe made in respect of mutual duties of employees having these three designations.The Meter Readers who had been thwarting the decision of interchangeability by exercising pressure through their union then moved the Allahabad High Court by filing writ petitions and those batch of writ petitions (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21844/84 and batch) were disposed of by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by judgment dated 29th of September, 1994. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the rival submission at the Bar and the materials produced before him by the respective parties came to hold that the SSOs/SBAs and Meter Readers, had been working in integrated manner and no complaint had been made on being transferred from one post to another and further when a complaint was made by filing a writ petition the said writ petition was dismissed and the amalgamation of cadres was held to be valid. It was further held that amalgamation of three posts into one cadre was made as early as in 1963 and the policy of interchangeability had merely been kept in abeyance and that abeyance order was lifted by issuance of order dated 9.5.1994 and as such no notice was required to be given to the employees. Repelling the contention of the counsel appearing for the Meter Readers that the work of SSOs/SBAs is too technical which cannot be performed by Meter Readers the learned Judge held that in fact the SSOs/SBAs are not required to touch the live machine except to move the handle for putting it on or off, and therefore, the grievance/apprehension of the Meter Reades is misconceived. The learned Judge further came to the conclusion that the policy decision to integrate three categories of officers into one cadre was taken by the Board after due deliberation and on obtaining the necessary technical advice and such a policy decision is not open to be challenged in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The contention of the Meter Readers to the effect that the decision was not the decision of the Board was negatived after perusing the original record of the Board produced before the Court and the learned Judge held that the decision is that of the Board. The learned Judge also came to the conclusion thatof the licensee who have been working under the Board after the company has been taken over have actually been found to have worked as SSOs/SBAs even before the order of the Board dated 9.5.1994 and as such it is not open for them to contend that their service conditions have been changed. The learned Judge also considered the contention that there has been no due deliberation on alteration of the conditions of service and held that the detailed consideration of the duties of the three categories of Meter Readers, SSOs and SBAs itself states that they are required to perform the job of SSOs/SBAs and as such there is no infirmity in the same. With the aforesaid conclusion the learned Single Judge ultimately held that there is no error of law/jurisdiction, patent illegality in passing the impugned order dated 9.5.1994 by the Board and consequential order ofand therefore, the writ petitions do not call for any interference. All the writ petitions were accordingly dismissed.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Single Judge the Meter Readers moved the Division Bench in appeal in a batch of appeals, namely, Special Appeal No. 755 of 1994 and the said appeal and the connected special appeals were disposed of by the impugned judgment dated 22.8.1995. Division Bench on consideration of order dated 9.5.1994 as well as the earlier resolutions of the Board came to hold that Board had not taken any decision of amalgamating the three categories of officers into one cadre and the decision of the Board has only directedof the Meter Readers, Sub Station Operators and Switch Board Attendants by way of transfer to each others cadre on deputation, and therefore, the order dated 9.5.1994 issued by the Director [Personnel] cannot be said to be an order of the Board and is not in conformity with the resolution of the Board and as such the said order cannot be sustained. Division Bench of the High Court further came to the conclusion that the policy of amalgamation does amount to change of service conditions of the employees, and therefore, under Section 4(i) of the UP Industrial Disputes Act notice is required to be given to the employee concerned and since no notice has in fact been given, the impugned order affecting the service conditions of the employees is vitiated. So far as the two earlier judgments of the Courts are concerned the Division Bench is of the conclusion that since the impugned order dated 9.5.1994 is not the decision of the Board the earlier judgments would not stand as a bar in granting the relief to the writ petitioners. With these conclusions the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside and the writ petitions were allowed and the order dated 9.5.1994 was struckbatch of cases are directed against two sets of judgments of Allahabad High Court dealing with the question of amalgamation of the posts of Meter Readers,Operators and Switch Board Attendants under the U.P. State Electricity Board. One batch of cases deal with the judgments delivered by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court dated 22.8.95, setting aside the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 29.9.1994 and allowing the writ petitions filed by some of the Meter Readers. At that point of time no Regulation had been framed by the Board under Section 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Supply Act") and the service conditions of the employees of the Board was being determined by issuance of administrative instructions from time to time.e second batch of cases deal with the constitutionality of the Regulation framed by the Board under Section 79(c) of the Supply Act and the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 11.7.1997 holds the Act to be intra vires. Some of the SLPs have been filed by the employees who were not parties before the High Court but have been permitted to file the Special Leave Petitions by this Court and as such are before us.From the pleading of the parties before the High Court and the documents available on record it transpires that the Board has taken the decision as early as in May 1963 that there will be a combined cadre of Meter Readers, Sub Station Operators and Switch Board Attendants and the services of these three categories of employee will be interchangeable. The aforesaid decision of the Board was modified by Boards decision dated 24.3.1977 whereunder the posts of Junior Meter Tester/Junior Meter Tester and Repairer were also included in the said combined cadre and it was stipulated therein that the services of these categories of employees shall be interchangeable. Some of the employees being aggrieved by the aforesaid combined categorisation of the posts moved the High Court of Allahabad by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2462 of 1975 and batch, which matter was dismissed by the High Court by judgment and order dated 28th September, 1977. It was clearly stated in the aforesaid judgment of the High Court that it is open to the Board to create a combined cadre of service consisting of all those posts which may be in the same grade and qualification as well as status are similar and the Board had indicated that the qualification for the three category of posts of Meter Readers, Sub Station Operators and Switch Board Attendants are almost the same and as a matter of policy the Board decided to have a combined cadre of these categories of posts. The High Court held that there has been no contravention of any law in combing the aforesaid posts into one cadre. When the Board issued its Memorandum dated 24.3.1977 including one more category of posts of Junior Meter Tester in the combined cadre, another batch of Writ Petitions came to be filed being Writ Petition No. 1348 of 1977 and batch which were disposed of by judgment and order dated 12.3.1979. It was held in this case that as a matter of policy it is open for the employer to integrate various cadre into one and there is no fetter on the power of the Board to integrate such cadres. The High Court also looked into the factual position and found that the transfer from one class of posts to another in the four categories does not involve any risk of life as contended by the petitioner. Ultimately the Writ Petitions filed stood dismissed. Though the posts, as aforesaid, were grouped together and formed one cadre and the holders of the posts could be interchanged, but on account of certain pressure from some of the employees the Board issued a direction on 20th October, 1975 that the interchangeability of incumbents should not be resorted to until further orders. By yet another order issued by the Board on 19th October, 1985 the earlier ban onof the incumbents to the posts of the Meter Readers and others was reiterated. The question ofof the posts which had been kept under abeyance wasand it was decided that the policy ofshould be enforced strictly. The Boards Resolution in this respect is manifest from its decision dated 2.3.1994.The aforesaid resolution of the Board is extracted hereinbelow in extenson took place in respect ofof posts amongst MRs, SSOs and SBOs. The Board granted approval on the aforesaid proposal of6. Pursuance to the aforesaid Resolution of the Board the Director [Personnel] by his dated 9th May, 1994 intimated all the Chief Engineers of UP State Electricity Board as undern of the Order No. 899/NG [ii]/S.E.B.3 dated 24.3.77, No.4 NG/72 dated 20.10.82 and No. 4837/K.Nineth3 dated 19.10.85, I am directed to say that in accordance with the terms of the Boards Order No. 2573/S.E.B.207/1963 dated 29.5.63 declaring combined cadre of Meter Readers, S.S.Os. and S.B.As. [at present S.B.Os.], mutualbe made in respect of mutual duties of employees having these three designations.The Meter Readers who had been thwarting the decision of interchangeability by exercising pressure through their union then moved the Allahabad High Court by filing writ petitions and those batch of writ petitions (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21844/84 and batch) were disposed of by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by judgment dated 29th of September, 1994. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the rival submission at the Bar and the materials produced before him by the respective parties came to hold that the SSOs/SBAs and Meter Readers, had been working in integrated manner and no complaint had been made on being transferred from one post to another and further when a complaint was made by filing a writ petition the said writ petition was dismissed and the amalgamation of cadres was held to be valid. It was further held that amalgamation of three posts into one cadre was made as early as in 1963 and the policy of interchangeability had merely been kept in abeyance and that abeyance order was lifted by issuance of order dated 9.5.1994 and as such no notice was required to be given to the employees. Repelling the contention of the counsel appearing for the Meter Readers that the work of SSOs/SBAs is too technical which cannot be performed by Meter Readers the learned Judge held that in fact the SSOs/SBAs are not required to touch the live machine except to move the handle for putting it on or off, and therefore, the grievance/apprehension of the Meter Reades is misconceived. The learned Judge further came to the conclusion that the policy decision to integrate three categories of officers into one cadre was taken by the Board after due deliberation and on obtaining the necessary technical advice and such a policy decision is not open to be challenged in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The contention of the Meter Readers to the effect that the decision was not the decision of the Board was negatived after perusing the original record of the Board produced before the Court and the learned Judge held that the decision is that of the Board. The learned Judge also came to the conclusion thatof the licensee who have been working under the Board after the company has been taken over have actually been found to have worked as SSOs/SBAs even before the order of the Board dated 9.5.1994 and as such it is not open for them to contend that their service conditions have been changed. The learned Judge also considered the contention that there has been no due deliberation on alteration of the conditions of service and held that the detailed consideration of the duties of the three categories of Meter Readers, SSOs and SBAs itself states that they are required to perform the job of SSOs/SBAs and as such there is no infirmity in the same. With the aforesaid conclusion the learned Single Judge ultimately held that there is no error of law/jurisdiction, patent illegality in passing the impugned order dated 9.5.1994 by the Board and consequential order ofand therefore, the writ petitions do not call for any interference. All the writ petitions were accordingly dismissed.g aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Single Judge the Meter Readers moved the Division Bench in appeal in a batch of appeals, namely, Special Appeal No. 755 of 1994 and the said appeal and the connected special appeals were disposed of by the impugned judgment dated 22.8.1995. Division Bench on consideration of order dated 9.5.1994 as well as the earlier resolutions of the Board came to hold that Board had not taken any decision of amalgamating the three categories of officers into one cadre and the decision of the Board has only directedof the Meter Readers, Sub Station Operators and Switch Board Attendants by way of transfer to each others cadre on deputation, and therefore, the order dated 9.5.1994 issued by the Director [Personnel] cannot be said to be an order of the Board and is not in conformity with the resolution of the Board and as such the said order cannot be sustained. Division Bench of the High Court further came to the conclusion that the policy of amalgamation does amount to change of service conditions of the employees, and therefore, under Section 4(i) of the UP Industrial Disputes Act notice is required to be given to the employee concerned and since no notice has in fact been given, the impugned order affecting the service conditions of the employees is vitiated. So far as the two earlier judgments of the Courts are concerned the Division Bench is of the conclusion that since the impugned order dated 9.5.1994 is not the decision of the Board the earlier judgments would not stand as a bar in granting the relief to the writ petitioners. With these conclusions the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside and the writ petitions were allowed and the order dated 9.5.1994 was struck

Reasoning:
19. In the aforesaid premises, we are of the considered opinion that in the case in hand the impugned Regulation constituting the posts of Meter Readers, Switch Board Operations and Sub Station Operators into one cadre does not violate the equality cause and cannot be said to be hit by the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. The contention of Mr. Dwivedi that in the absence of any provision forof the post in the Regulation the Meter Readers cant be transferred and posted as Switch Board Officer or Sub Station Officers is also devoid of any substance as Regulation 38(2) is a specific provision for transfer and also lays down the conditions for such transfer. We also do not find any substance in the arguments of Ms. Janani, the learned counsel that the Regulation is invalid on account of noncompliance of Section 4(i) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Proviso (ii) to the aforesaid provision makes the provisions of the Act inapplicable, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as the conditions of services of the employees of the Board are regulated by set of Regulations framed under section 79(c) of the Supply Act, which Regulation has been duly notified in the Official Gazette. We have also examined the earlier judgments of the High Court and we do not find any direction/observation contained in any of the earlier judgments requiring issuance of notice to the employees before framing the regulation under Section 79(c) of the Supply Act. The submission of Ms. Janani on this score, therefore, is rejected. In the aforesaid premises, we do not find any substance in the argument of Ms. Janani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in some of the appeals that the Regulation is bad being violative forof the provisions of Section 4(i) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.In the aforesaid premises, the judgment and order dated 22.8.1995 of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court is set aside the appeals arising out of the said judgment are allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.9.1994 is affirmed and it is held that prior to enforcement of the service regulations the Board was fully competent tothe incumbents occupying the posts of Meter Readers, Sub Station Officers and Operators and Switch Board Officers in view of the administrative order issued by the Board and no such order can be held to be infirm in any manner. We further affirm the conclusion of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 11th of July, 1997 in Special Appeal Nos. 414 of 1996 and 578 of 1996 and batch and hold that the provisions of U.P. State Electricity Board Operational Employees Category Service Regulation, 1955 is a valid piece of Regulation governing the service conditions of the employees of the Board and there is no infirmity with the said Regulation.