NDLI: Hydro-electric Employees Union, U.p. and Ors. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Sharma and Ors. Etc.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1948: Section 79 (c) U.P. State Electricity Board Operational Employees Category Service Regulation Amalgamation of Posts Industrial Disputes Act: Section 4(i) Proviso II 38(2) U.P. Electricity Supply Act 1955: Regulation 4
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Uttar Pradesh Electricity (duty) Act, 1952 (33 of 1952)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	U.P. Electricity Supply Act, 1948 Section 79 (c)-U.P. State Electricity Board Operational Employees Category Service Regulation, 1955-Regulation 4, 38(2)-Amalgamation of posts of three categories in one cadre-Posts carrying similar functions-Held, amalgamation is proper.Formation of unified cadre-Amalgamation posts-Whether specific provision for interchangeability essential-Held, no-When there is a unified cadre there is no requirement of specific order of interchangeability. Constitution of lndia-Article 14-Amalgamation of posts-Validity of-Posts carrying similar responsibilities-Past practice of interchangeability between the categories-Held, no violation of equality clause-Provision upheld. Industrial Disputes Act-Section 4 (i) Proviso II-Whether regulation of amalgamation of posts requires prior notice-Held, no-The regulations since notified in official gazette, no prior notice is required.The appellants-Meter Readers in U.P. State Electricity Board challenged the amalgamation of post of Meter Readers, Sub-Station Operators and Switch Board Attendants under the Board and the validity and constitutionality of the regulation framed by the Board under Section 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. The Board had initially taken a decision in 1963 for a combined cadre of the above categories of employees so that their services would be interchangeable. The aforesaid decision was modified in 1977 by which two other posts were included in the combined cadre. When it was challenged before the High Court in 1975 it was clearly stated that it was within the authority of the Board to create a combined cadre of service consisting of all the posts and that there has been no contravention of any law in combining the aforesaid posts into one cadre. Thereafter in another batch of writ petition filed in 1977 it was held that as a matter of policy it is open for the employer to integrate various cadres into one and there is no fetter on the power of the Board to integrate such cadres. The interchangeability order was kept in abeyance for some time and in 1994 the Board took a resolution to again resort to the proposal of interchangeability among the Meter Readers, Sub-Station Operation and Switch Board Attendants and issued an order to that effect.The appellants - Meter Readers filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the order which was dismissed by the Single Judge. The Single Judge of the High Court held that the SSOs/SBAs and Meter Readers had been working in integrated manner, that the decision has been taken as early as in 1963 and no notice was required to be given to the employees while lifting the abeyance order in 1994, that the policy decision to integrate three categories of employees into one cadre was taken by the Board after due deliberation and on obtaining necessary technical advice, and that there is no error of law/jurisdiction or patent illegality in passing the order by the Board. Allowing the appeals by the employees the Division Bench held that the Board had not taken any decision of amalgamating the three categories of officers into one cadre and the decision of the Board has only directed interchangeability of the meter readers, SSOs and SBAs by way of transfer to each other's cadres that the policy of amalgamation amounts to change of service conditions and therefore notice is required to be given to the employees under section 4 (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act.The appellants also challenged the regulation under Section 79 (c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 whereby different posts were brought under one cadre. The High Court upheld the validity and held that there is no infirmity in the regulation so as to be interfered with.On appeal before this Court the appellants-Board contended that the findings of the High Court is based on total misreading of the resolutions of the Board passed from time to time and; that since 1963 all the categories having been merged into one combined cadre no grievance can be made in 1994; that once the cadre is formed consisting of different category of officers, under service jurisprudence they are liable to be transferred from one post to other within the cadre and there cannot be any fetter on the powers of the employer in effecting such transfer. The Board, defending the order of the High Court upholding the constitutionality of the regulation, contended that formation of the cadre is a policy decision; that after entering into service an employee gets a status which can be altered by the employer in exercise of its power to frame rules; that Section 4(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act has no application in view of proviso 2 of Section 4 (i), and that it is not necessary to specifically " provide for interchangeability in the regulation as once the posts are constituted into one cadre it is implied and under regulation 38 various posts of one cadre can be interchanged. The Respondents-Meter Readers • contended that they have been continuing as Meter Readers right from the inception of their service and their job requirement is such that they cannot perform duties assigned to other two categories of employees and therefore the decision of the Board is illegal; that though the Board had ample power to frame regulation governing the conditions of service of the employees under Section 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act, yet by virtue of grouping widely dissimilar posts the decision has to be struck down by Court as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; that the clubbing of other posts with Meter Readers is arbitrary; that by the process of amalgamation of these posts the employer has brought several unequals as equals and the said grouping is discriminatory; that the regulation does not provide for interchangeability; that the Board has not applied the principle of functional similarity and co-equal responsibility of different posts before integrating them, that no notice under Section 4(i) of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act was given to the employees; that there are several employees of the ex-licensee who were continuing under the Board and their service conditions have been unilaterally altered by framing of regulation to their disadvantage without taking the option and therefore the regulation must be struck down. Allowing the appeals by the Board and dismissing the appeals by the Meter • Readers, the Court
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik
Neutral Citation	1998 INSC 320
Petitioner	Hydro-electric Employees Union, U.p. And Ors.
Respondent	Sudhir Kumar Sharma And Ors. Etc.
SCR	[1998] Supp. (1) S.C.R. 105
Judgement Date	1998-08-25
Case Number	3462

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Hydro-electric Employees Union, U.p. and Ors. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Sharma and Ors. Etc.

Please Log-in to view this content

Sat Pal Puri Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors.

M/s. Pawan Alloys and Casting Pvt. Ltd., Meerut Etc. Etc. Vs. U.p. State Electricity Board and Ors.

U.p State Electricity Board. Lucknow & Ors. Vs. City Board, Mussoorie & Ors. Etc. (and Vice Versa)

U.p Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. R. K. Shukla and Anr. Etc.

M/s. Real Food Products Ltd. and Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. A.p. State Electricity Board and Ors.

Rajasthan State Electricity Board and Ors. Vs. Laxman Lal Etc. Etc.

Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. Vs. Parmeshwar Kumar Agarwala Etc. Etc.

Indian Thermal Power Ltd. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of M.p. and Ors.

Jagadamba Paper Industries (pvt.) Ltd. Etc. Etc. Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors. Etc.

Hydro-electric Employees Union, U.p. and Ors. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Sharma and Ors. Etc.

Hydro-electric Employees Union, U.p. and Ors. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Sharma and Ors. Etc.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Sat Pal Puri Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors.

M/s. Pawan Alloys and Casting Pvt. Ltd., Meerut Etc. Etc. Vs. U.p. State Electricity Board and Ors.

U.p State Electricity Board. Lucknow & Ors. Vs. City Board, Mussoorie & Ors. Etc. (and Vice Versa)

U.p Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. R. K. Shukla and Anr. Etc.

M/s. Real Food Products Ltd. and Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. A.p. State Electricity Board and Ors.

Rajasthan State Electricity Board and Ors. Vs. Laxman Lal Etc. Etc.

Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. Vs. Parmeshwar Kumar Agarwala Etc. Etc.

Indian Thermal Power Ltd. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of M.p. and Ors.

Jagadamba Paper Industries (pvt.) Ltd. Etc. Etc. Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors. Etc.

Hydro-electric Employees Union, U.p. and Ors. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Sharma and Ors. Etc.