http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAM AUTAR AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/03/1996

BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) AHMADI A.M. (CJ)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (5)   424        1996 SCALE  (3)108

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T K. Venkataswami,J.      Leave granted. Heard counsel on both sides.      The   appellant,    U.P.   State    Electricity   Board (hereinafter referred  to as  the "Electricity Board") seems to  be   more  aggrieved   by  the  following  pungent/harsh observations made by the High Court against the officials of the Electricity Board and in particular against its Chairman and Secretary :      "Probably the  authorities of  U.P.      State  Electricity   Board,   think      themselves above  the State  or the      least a  State within the State. It      seems  that   they  are   under  an      illusion that  if  they  flout  the      directions of the State Government,      there would  be no  forum where the      person  can   seek  redress.   They      failed to  realise that  the  State      Government   acting    within   its      powers, sanctioned  by law, had the      authority  to   issue   directions,      particularly in  matters,  where  a      policy  is   involved  leaving   no      option to  them  except  to  comply      with  those   directions.  As  they      refused   to    comply   with   the      directions of  the State Government      in a  most reckless  and indiscreet      manner, this  Court, has  no option      except to force them to act, within      the boundaries  of law.  But before      doing so,  I am constrained to say,      that the  Chairman and Secretary of      U.P.   State   Electricity   Board,      considering  themselves,   a   rare

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    species like white Elephants, tried      to ransack  and destroy, circumvent      the   directions   of   the   State      Government. I  am definitely of the      view that  the  aforesaid  officers      are not only guilty of flouting the      directions of the State Government,      but are  responsible for harassing,      a retrenched  employee who deserved      sympathy and  compassion.  However,      it is  for the  State Government to      consider,  as   to   whether   such      persons  should   be   allowed   to      continue on such higher positions."      The circumstances  under which  the above  observations came to be made can be briefly noted :      The Government  of Uttar Pradesh took a policy decision to absorb  the employees  of the  Corporations/ Undertakings which have  been wound  up due  to recurring losses in other Departments/Undertakings of  the Government.  One such State owned Corporation  which ended  in winding  up was  the U.P. Chalchitra Nigam.  After giving  notice steps  were taken to terminate the  services of the employees of that Corporation and on  humanitarian ground,  the Government decided to take steps for absorption of the employees of this Corporation in other Departments/Organisations under the Government. Out of 600 employees of Chalchitra Nigam, only few had been without absorption in  other departments,  one among  those left out was the  first respondent  herein. Pursuant to the policy as stated above,  the Government asked the Electricity Board to appoint the  first respondent  as Electrician.  In spite  of several such  requests from  the Government,  the  appellant Electricity Board  took a  stand that  the Electricity Board being  an   autonomous  body   cannot  be  directed  by  the Government  absorb/appoint   the  first  respondent  in  the Electricity  Board   as  Electrician.   Finding   that   the Electricity Board  was not  prepared to  appoint/absorb him, the first respondent moved the High Court for the issue of a Writ  of   Mandamus  commanding  the  Electricity  Board  to appoint/absorb him  on  the  post  of  Electrician  and  for consequential reliefs.  Even  before  the  High  Court,  the appellant  took  the  same  stand  by  placing  reliance  on Sections 5 and 78A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948      The learned Single Judge after looking into the various correspondence that  passed between  the Government  and the Electricity Board made the above observations.      Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Electricity Board fairly  and rightly  stated that  in compliance of the order of  the High  Court, the  first  respondent  has  been appointed/absorbed and the appellant has decided to continue his services  irrespective  of  the  result  of  this  case. Therefore, so  far as  the question  of law is concerned, we need not  go into  that in  view of  the fair and reasonable attitude taken  by the  appellant Electricity Board. However the learned  counsel for  the appellant was particular about the deletion the pungent observations extracted above.      In Rakesh  Ranjan Verma  and Others  vs. State of Bihar and Others  (AIR 1992  SC 1348)  this Court  had occasion to consider  the  scope  of  Section  78A  of  the  Electricity (Supply) Act,  1948. Considering Section 78A of the Act, the Court observed as under :-      "78A.  Directions   by  the   State      Government.-      (1)  In   the  discharge   of   its      functions,  the   Board  shall   be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    guided  by   such   directions   on      question of  policy as may be given      to it by the State Government.           (2)  If   any  dispute  arises      between the  Board  and  the  State      Government as to whether a question      is or  is not a question of policy,      it  shall   be  referred   to   the      Authority  whose  decision  thereon      shall be final.           The  above  provision  clearly      lays down  that the  Board shall be      guided  by   such   directions   on      questions of policy as may be given      to it  by the  State Government. In      the  circumstances   of  the   case      before  us   the  directions  given      under letter dated 18.7.1988 and 5.      5. 1989  cannot  be  considered  as      directions  on   any  questions  of      policy. So  far as  the appointment      of   staff   is   concerned,   S.15      empowers the  Board to appoint such      officers and  employees as  may  be      required to  enable  the  Board  to      carry out  its functions  under the      Act."      In view  of the  law laid  down by this Court as above, one cannot  find fault with the appellant for taking a stand as they  took  before  the  High  Court,  namely,  that  the Government have  no authority  to  give  directions  to  the Electricity Board  to appoint/absorb the first respondent as Electrician in  the Board.  The further question whether the directions in  the facts and circumstances of this case will fall within  the  scope  of  Section  78-A  is  a  debatable question and,  therefore, the appellant can not be condemned for taking  such stand before the High Court. This Court has time   and    again   observed    that   making    stringent observations/strictures must be avoided by the courts as far as possible  and  only  in  exceptional  circumstances  such observations can  be made.  We do not think the case on hand presents any  exceptional  circumstances.  For  the  reasons stated above, We set aside the observations extracted at the beginning from  the judgment  of  the  High  Court  appealed against and  dispose of  the  appeal  accordingly.  However, there will be nor order as to costs.