http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: HYDRO-ELECTRIC EMPLOYEES UNION, U.P. & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/08/1998

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH C.A Nos.  3462/96,  3464/96,  3465/96,  3467/96,  C.A.  Nos. 4232/98, 4235-4237/98,4238/98 (Arising  out  of  SLP  (C)  Nos.  15286/97,  16616-6619/97, 23554/97,) C.A.  Nos. 468-470/98,  and  C.A.  Nos.  4241/98& 4242/98 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6454/98 & 16118/97).                       J U D G M E N T PATTANAIK, J.      Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.      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, Sub Station 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. Al 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 pleadings 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 Section 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 Board’s decision dated  24.3.1997 whereunder  the  posts  of  Junior Meter Tester/Junior  Meter Tester  and  Repairer  were  also

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

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 combining  the aforesaid posts into one  cadre. When  the Board issued its Memorandum dated 24.3.1997 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 fatter on the powder 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, 1982  that the  inter-changeability  of  incumbents should not  be resorted  to further  orders. By  yet another order issued  by the  Board on 19th October, 195 the earlier ban on inter-changeability of the incumbents to the posts of the Meter Readers and others was reiterated. The question of inter-changeability of  the posts  which had been kept under abeyance was  re-examined and it was decided that the policy of changeability  should be  enforced strictly.  The Board’s Resolution in  this respect  is manifest  from its  decision dated 2.3.1994.      The aforesaid  resolution of  the  Board  is  extracted hereinbelow in extenso :      "Detailed discussion  took place in      respect of  inter-changeability  of      posts amongst  MRs, SSOs  and SBOs.      The Board  granted approval  on the      aforesaid   proposal    of   inter-      changeability of posts"      Pursuance to  the aforesaid Resolution of the Board the Director [Personnel]  by his  letter dated  9th of May, 1994 intimated all  the Chief  Engineers of  UP State Electricity Board as under :      "In supersession  of the  Order No.      899/NG  [ii]/S.E.B.  Fourth  -  154      N.G/83 dated  24.3.77, No.  4447  -      Anineth [R]/NEV-82-154  NG/72 dated      20.10.82  and   No.   4837/K.Nineth      [a]/S.E.B./85-154    NG-73    dated      19.10.85. I am directed to say that      in accordance with the terms of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

    Board’s  Order  No.  3573/S.E.B.  -      2074/1963 dated  29.5.63  declaring      combined cadre  of  Meter  Readers,      S.S.Os.  and   S.B.As  [at  present      S.B.Os], mutual inter-changeability      be made in respect of mutual duties      of  employees  having  these  three      designations."      The Meter  Readers who  had been thwarting the decision of inter-changeability  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  inter-changeability 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   Readers   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  that  ex-employees  of  the licensee who have been working under the Board after 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 content 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  of  inter- changeability, and 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

the  learned  Single  Judge  the  Meter  Readers  moved  the Division Bench  in  appeal  in  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  22.8.1994. 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 directed  inter-changeability  of  the  Meter  Readers,  Sub Station Operators  and Switch  Board Attendants  by  way  of transfer each  other’s 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 Court  are concerned the Division Bench is of the  conclusion  that  since  the  impugned  order  dated 9.5.1994 is  no  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 stuck down.      Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel who lead the argument in the batch  of appeals  challenging  the  aforesaid  Division Bench judgment  of Allahabad  High Court  contended that the conclusions arrived  at by  the  High  Court  are  not  only manifestly erroneous but also is based upon total misreading of the resolutions of the Board passed from time to time and as such  the impugned  order of the Division Bench cannot be sustained. The  learned counsel further contended that right from 1963  the three category of officers having been merged into one  combined cadre no grievance can be made in 1994 to the aforesaid  merger of  category of officers and formation of one cadre. According to the learned counsel, the Board no doubt  for   some  period   had  not   enforced  the  inter- changeability but  it does not debar the employer to enforce the same.  According to  Mr. Gupta  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  nay fetter on  the powers  of the  employer  in  effecting  such transfer.      The   learned counsel  appearing for  the respondents - Meter Readers  on the  other hand  contended that  they have been continuing as Meter Readers right form 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 impugned decision of the Board dated 9.5.1994  is wholly  illegal. The learned counsel also support the  judgment of the Division Bench and contend that there is no infirmity in the said judgment.      We have  carefully considered  the rival submissions of the counsel  for the parties and we found considerable force in the  submissions made  by Mr.  Gupta  appearing  for  the appellants in C.A. No. 3462/96. On scrutiny of the documents available on record we find that three category of officers,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

namely, Meter Readers, Sub Station Officers and Switch Board Officers have  been amalgamated  into one  cadre by  Board’s Resolution dated  29.5.1963 and  further the  Board had also taken a  conscious decision  that these  three categories of employees will be inter-changeable. By subsequent resolution of the  Board dated  24th of  March, 1977 the post of Junior Meter Testers/Junior  Mete Tester  & Repairers  was added to the earlier  three categories  of  posts  and  all  of  them constituted a  combined cadre and it was the decision of the Board that the people should normally rotate on the posts in every  2   to  3   years  as   may  be   required  from  the administrative point  of view.  We further  find that though for some  administrative  reasons  the  decision  of  inter- changeability had  been kept  in abeyance  but all the posts continued to  be included  in one  cadre and later on in the year 1994  the entire  matter having  been  re-examined  the Board reiterated  its  earlier  decision  and  directed  the enforcement of  inter-changeability  of  posts  amongst  the Meter  Readers,  Sub  Station  Operators  and  Switch  Board Officers. The  Division Bench  of the  High Court  committed serious error  in coming to its conclusion that the decision of the Board was merely to post Meter Readers as Sub Station Officers/Switch Board  Officers on deputation and vice-versa and that  there had  not been any unified cadre of all these officers. The Division Bench also committed further error in recording the  finding that  the decision dated 9.5.1994 was only of  the Director [Personnel] and not that of the Board. The aforesaid  conclusion in our considered opinion is based on a  thorough misreading  of the  resolutions of  the Board issued  from   time  to   time  as  already  discussed.  The resolution of  the  Board  dated  2.3.1994  which  has  been extracted in the earlier part of this judgment unequivocally indicates that  the inter-changeability of the posts amongst Meter  Readers,   Sub  Station  Officers  and  Switch  Board Officers should  be enforced forthwith and the resolution of the Board was communicated to all the Chief Engineers of the Board by  letter dated  9.5.1994. The  letter in question no doubt had  been communicated by the Director [Personnel] but all the  same, decision  had been  taken by the Board itself and the  Director [Personnel]  had merely  communicated  the same to  the different  Chief Engineers  for being enforced. The Division  Bench of the High Court, therefore, was wholly in error  in striking  down the  order dated 9.5.1994 on the ground that it was not the decision of the board. In view of our conclusion  that the  Board had  amalgamated  the  three category of officers into one cadre as early as on 29.5.1963 the question  of  issuing  notice  to  the  employees  under Section 4(i)  of  the  UP  Industrial  Disputes  Act  before issuance of  order dated 9.5.1994 does not arise. That apart as has been stated by the learned Single Judge even prior to the issuance  of order  dated 9.5.1994 several employees who had been  initially appointed  as Meter Readers were working as Switch  Board Officers  and vice-versa.  It may be stated here that under the service jurisprudence if a unified cadre is formed by the employer consisting of different categories of persons  then there  would be  no bar for the employer to make transfers  within the  cadre and  for such  transfers a specific order  of inter-changeability is not required under law. As  we have stated earlier that these three category of officers were  constituted into  one cadre by the employer - Board in  the year  1963, the Board will be within its power to transfer them from one post to the other within the cadre itself. In  the aforesaid premises, the impugned judgment of the Division  Bench of  Allahabad High Court dated 22.8.1995 is wholly  unsustainable in law and we accordingly set aside

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

the same  and we  affirm the  judgment of the learned Single Judge dated  29.9.94 and  writ petitions  filed by the Meter Readers stand dismissed.      We would  now examine the second batch of cases dealing with the  constitutionality of  the Regulation  framed under Section 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948.      It may  be stated  at this  stage that  the U.P.  State Electricity Board  framed a  set of  Regulation laying  down service conditions of the operational employees of the Board in exercise  of powers  conferred under Section 79(c) of the Supply Act  which was  duly notified in the Official Gazette dated  16th   December,  1995,   called  ‘the   U.P.   State Electricity Board  Operational  Employees  Category  Service Regulation   1995   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the Regulation’). Regulation  4 of the Regulation provided for a cadre and it stipulates that the service strength of members and then  number of  each category  thereon shall be such as may be  determined by  the Board  from time  to time. On the basis of  the scale  of pay  attached to  different posts as well as  the respective qualification for the post the Board categorised and  grouped together different posts and in the case in  hand were are concerned with category P4 containing posts carrying  the scale of Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 1800/-. Under the category P4 (Ka) as many as five posts have been grouped together at  serial no.  23, the  said post  being  (a)  Sub Station Operators,  Switch Board Operators (b) Meter Readers (c)  Junior   Electrician;  Junior   Electrician  Grade   I, Elctrician Grade  I &  II (d)  Centrifugal Mistry  (e) Meter Tester and  Repairer, Mete Mechanic. Vidyut ut Mazdoor Sangh filed a  Writ Petition  challenging the constitutionality of the aforesaid  Regulation which  was numbered  as Civil Writ Petition No. 15034 of 1996. A learned Single Judge passed an interim order  in the  aforesaid Writ  Petition on  1.5.1996 staying the  operation  of  the  Regulation.  The  aforesaid interim order  of the learned Single Judge was challenged by Vidyut Mazdoor  Snaghthan, Lucknow in Special Appeal No. 414 of 1996,  and by  U.P. State  Electricity Board  in  Special Appeal No.  578 of  1996. In  course of  hearing of the said Special Appeals  on Concession  of the counsel appearing for the parties  the original  Writ Petition  out of  which  the Special Appeals arose as well as all concerned bunch of Writ Petitions were heard by the Division Bench and were disposed of by  the impugned  judgment dated 11th July, 1997. Several contentions  were   raised   before   the   Division   Bench challenging the  constitutionality  of  Regulation  and  the Division Bench formulated as many as 16 questions which were said to  be the  controversies to    be  determined  in  the proceedings. By  a well  reasoned judgment  giving  detailed grounds the  Division Bench  repelled  all  the  contentions raised by  the writ  petitioners and  held that  there is no infirmity in  the Regulation so as to be interfered within a writ petition  under Article  226 of  the Constitution.  The learned judges  held the  Regulation to  be intra  vires and dismissed all  the writ  petitions  filed  before  the  High Court.      Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, the learned senior counsel who lead arguments on  behalf of  those employees  who had challenged the constitutionality  of the Regulation contended that even though  the  Board  had  ample  power  to  frame  Regulation governing the  conditions of  service of  the  employees  as provided under  Section 79(c)  of  the  Supply  Act  and  in exercise of  such power under the Regulation different posts can be  clubbed together constituting a cadre, yet by virtue of such  grouping if  widely dissimilar post judged from the yardstick of the qualification and duty attached to the post

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

are put  into one category or cadre then such a decision has to be  struck down by court being contrary to the provisions of Article  14  of  the  Constitution.  In  elaborating  his submissions Mr.  Dwivedi, the  learned senior  counsel  also urged that  the posts  of  Junior  Electrician,  Centrifugal Ministry and Mete Testers and Meter Repairers are all highly technical posts and the job requirements for these posts are such that  it would  not be  possible for  a Meter Reader to discharge the duties attached to those posts and, therefore, clubbing them  together with the Meter Reader is prima facie arbitrary and  should not  be permitted.  He also  contended that even the post of Switch Board Operators and Sub Station Operators should  not have  been grouped  together with Mete Readers as  they discharge  completely different  duties and the qualification  necessary  for  such  posts  are  totally different and  by the process of amalgamation of these posts the employer  has brought  several unequals  as  equals  and consequently said grouping must be held to be discriminatory and must  be struck  down. Mr.  Dwivedi, the  learned senior counsel also  contended that  in the  Regulation there is no provision of  inter-changeability which was earlier existing under   the    administrative   orders    and,    therefore, notwithstanding the posts being under one group it would not be permissible for the employer to transfer Meter Readers as Switch Board  Operator or Sub Station Operator. According to Mr. Dwivedi  the Board  has not  applied  the  principle  of functional  similarity   and  co-equal   responsibility   of different posts  before integrating them into one cadre and, therefore, the  Court would be justified in interfering with such integration of service. Ms. Janani, the learned counsel and other  and other  learned counsel  who  supported    the leading arguments  of Mr.  Dwivedi further  urged  that  the Regulation is invalid as under the Regulation though service conditions of the employees have been  changed yet no notice under Section  4(1) of  the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act had been given.  The learned  counsel also  urged that  the High Court itself  while dealing  with the  Administrative  Order under which  three categories of posts had been brought into one, had  observed that the Board may frame Regulation under Section 79(c)  of the  Supply Act after giving notice to the employees concerned  and absence  of such notice invalidates the Regulation.  It was  also urged  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.  The learned  counsel  reiterated  the submission of  Mr. Dwivedi  that the  existing Meter Readers who have been discharging such functions and duties as Meter Reader from  the inception  of their career are totally non- technical person  and have  no expertise or qualification to go near  any live  wire and,  therefore, they could not have been put  together with  the other  category of officers, as already indicated,  and  such  clubbing  together  indicates total non-application of mind of the employer.      Mr. Dave,  the learned senior counsel appearing for the Board on  the other  hand contended  that the formation of a cadre by  bringing together  different  posts  is  a  policy decision has been formulated by framing of the Regulation in exercise of powers under Section 79(c) and (k) of the Supply Act and  before brining different category of posts into one cadre there has been due deliberation by the officers of the Board  as   is  apparent  from  different  Resolutions,  and therefore,  there   is  infirmity  with  the  Regulation  in bringing the different category of posts into one cadre. Mr.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

Dave, learned  senior  counsel  also  submitted  that  after entering into  service which is initially one of contract an employee gets a status and such status can be altered by the employer in  exercise of  its power to frame Rules governing conditions of  service and  until and  unless such  Rule  is found to  be violative of any provisions of the Constitution the same  cannot be  struck down.  Mr. Dave  learned  senior counsel  also  submitted  that  Section  4(i)  of  the  U.P. Industrial Disputes  Act has no application and no notice is required before  framing of  the Regulation  in question  in view of  proviso (ii)  to Section  4(i) of  U.P.  Industrial Disputes Act.  Mr.  Dave,  learned  senior  counsel  further contended that  the High  Court in the impugned judgment has gone into  the duties of different category of posts and has come to the conclusion that the duties of the Meter Readers, Switch Board  Operators and  the Sub  Station Operators  are comparable and,  therefore, it  cannot be said that unequals have been brought as equals by putting them in one cadre. On the  question   of  absence  of  any  provision  for  inter- changeability in  the Regulation  Mr. Dave,  learned  senior counsel submitted  that it  is not necessary to specifically provide for  the same once the post are constituted into one cadre and  further the  provisions of  Regulation  38  could govern such transfer within the cadre.      Before  examining   the  correctness   of   the   rival submissions it  would be  appropriate for  us to  notice the conclusion of  the Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  on different issues  formulated by  it for answering the points raised. The said conclusions are summarised hereunder:      (i) It  is difficult  to trace  any      kind  of   repugnancy  between  the      Regulation  framed   under  Section      79(c) of  the Supply  Act  and  any      other Industrial Act.      (ii) The  power given  to the Board      to frame  Regulation under  Section      79(c)  cannot   be   said   to   be      uncontrolled and unguided.      (iii)  With   reference  to  clause      (iii)  of  the  second  proviso  to      Section  79   of  the  Act,  it  is      difficult  to  trace  and  kind  of      repugnancy.      (iv)  In  view  of  the  provisions      contained in  clause (iii)  of  the      second proviso to Section 79 of the      Act, the  Regulations framed by the      Board   shall    have   an   effect      notwithstanding anything  contained      in Section  1-B of  the  Industrial      Employment (Standing  Orders)  Act,      1946   or   Section   9A   of   the      Industrial Disputes Act and Section      4(i)   of   the   U.P.   Industrial      Disputes Act.      (v) No  notice was  required to  be      given   before   framing   of   the      Regulation in question as contended      by the writ petitioners.      (vi) The  services of the employees      under the erstwhile licensees stood      absorbed  under   the  Board  under      Section   6(a)    of   the   Indian      Electricity  Act,  1910  and  there      would be  no bar  for the  Board to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

    lay down  the conditions of service      of such employees.      (vii)  The   Board’s  authority  to      frame Regulation  so as  to  change      the service conditions and bringing      various groups  of employees  under      one cadre cannot be questioned.      (viii) It  is not disputed that the      majority  of   Meter  Readers  were      initially appointed  as Sub Station      Operators    and    Switch    Board      Operators  and   were  subsequently      transferred as  Meter  Readers  and      after being  transferred  as  Meter      Readers and after being transferred      as Meter  Readers their  effort has      been to stick to the said job.      (ix)  The  Meter  Readers  and  Sub      Station Operators  and Switch Board      Attendants are  being paid from the      beginning the same scale of pay.      (x)  The  provisions  contained  in      Regulation   22   for   determining      seniority are  based on  well known      principles and  we do  not see  any      illegality in them.      With these  conclusions the  High Court in the impugned judgment has  upheld the  validity  of  the  Regulation  and dismissed the writ petitions.      From the  rival submissions made before us we find that the only  contention which  may require little consideration is that  of Mr.  Dwivedi, the  learned senior  counsel, that whether in  clubbing  together  different  posts  under  the Regulation the Board has in fact borne in mind the principle of functional  similarity and  co-equal responsibility.  The power of  the Board  as employer  to constitute  a cadre  by amalgamating different  posts under the Board id undoubtedly very  wide.   But  in  exercise  of  such  power  if  it  is established that  the Board  has not applied its mind to the relevant criterias and thereby grossly dissimilar posts have been brought  together and constituted into one cadre it may be possible  for a court to interfere with such amalgamation of a  unified cadre.  But the  question for consideration is whether really  there exists any such illegality in the case in hand?  Our examination  in this  connection should  be in respect of  three  category  of  posts,  namely,  the  Meter Readers, the  Switch Board  Attendants and  the Sub  Station Operators as  before the  High Court challenge has been made essentially in  respect of  these three categories. The very history of  the employees  of the  aforesaid categories,  as reflected  through   different  earlier   judgments  noticed earlier in this judgment, makes it clear that right from the inception these  three category  of people have often inter- changed among  themselves and  as has  been observed  by the High  Court   many  of  the  Meter  Readers  were  initially appointed either  for doing the job in the Sub Station or at the Switch  Board. To satisfy ourselves as to really whether there exists  any differentiation so far as their respective duties are  concerned, we have also scrutinised the relevant materials indicating the duties of these three categories of employees and  we find  that in  fact there  is not  much of dissimilarity. The  Meter Readers  while are  called upon to discharge their  duty on  the Meters  fixed for the domestic consumers, the  Switch  Board  Attendants  and  Sub  Station Operators are  required to  perform similar duties either at

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

the Sub  Station or at the Switch Board, as the case may be. The qualification  required in  entering into  such posts is also similar.  The  pay  scale  attached  to  the  posts  is similar.  In   fact  they   have  been  discharging  similar functions. In this view of the matter it is difficult for us to hold  that the  Board had grouped dissimilar posts into a unified cadre.  We are  in  fact  not  examining  the  other category  of   posts  which  have  been  brought  under  the Regulation into  one cadre since no factual matrix have been brought on  record and  in fact  no contest has been made on that score. Mr. Dwivedi’s contention that the post of Junior Electrician, Junior Centrifugal Mistry and Meter Testers and Meter Repairers are posts which are highly skilled posts and should not have been clubbed with Meter Readers, Sub Station Operators  and   Switch  Board  Operators  may  be  of  some substance on  the anvil of dissimilarity of their respective jib requirements  but we  are not  examining the same in the proceeding as such grievances, if any, taken care of by sub- regulation  (2)  of  Regulation  38.  Under  the  said  Sub- regulation a  member of  the service can be transferred from one post  to another  if the  qualification of the two posts and the  scale of  pay of  the two  posts is  the  same  and further there does not exist any need of any past experience or competence  to hold  the transferee  post. But  we do  no think it  necessary to  deal with this aspect in any further detail as  the parties  before the High Court have primarily contested the  legality in  relation to  the posts  of Meter Readers, Switch  Board Operators  and Sub  Station Operators having been  brought into  one unified  cadre. We do not see any legal  infirmity with the Regulation framed by the Board in exercise  of powers under Section 79(c) of the Supply Act in bringing  these posts  into one  unified  cadre  and  the conclusion  of   the  High   Court  on  this  score  remains unassailable. In  RESERVE BANK  OF INDIA  case (1976)  4 SCC 838, when  the Bank had amalgamated different posts into one cadre and  evolved a  scheme for  determining  the  combined seniority, the  same had  been challenged  by the  employees being violative  of Articles  14 and  16 of the Constitution and this Court had observed: "that Articles 14 and 16 do not forbid the  creation of  different cadres for Govt. service. And if  that be  so, equally these two Articles cannot stand in the  way of  the State  integrating different cadres into one cadre.  It is  entirely a matter for the State to decide whether to  have several  different cadres or one integrated cadre in its service. This is a matter policy which does not attract  the  applicability  of  the  equality  clause.  The integration of  non-clerical  with  services  sought  to  be effectuated by  a combined  seniority scheme  cannot in  the circumstances be assailed as violative of the constitutional principle of equality.      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 Operators and  Sub Station Operators into one cadre does not violate the  equality clause 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 for  interchange ability  of  the  Regulation  the Meter Readers  can’t be  transferred and  posted  as  Switch Board Officers 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 non-compliance of Section 4(i) of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

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  for  non- compliance of  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  and 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 to  interchange the  incumbents occupying the post of Meter  Readers, sub  Station Officers  and Operators  and Switch Board  Officers in  view of the administrative orders issued by  the Board  and no  such order  can be  held to be infirm in  any manner.  We further affirm the conclusions 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. The appeals arising out  of the  aforesaid judgment  dated 11th of July, 1977, accordingly  stand  dismissed.  All  the  appeals  are disposed of  accordingly.  In  the  circumstances,  however, there will be no order as to costs.