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

PETITIONER: THE ORISSA ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS’ SERVICE ASSOCIATION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/12/1997

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 19th DAY OF DECEMBER, 1997 Present:              Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati              Hon’ble Mr. Justice k. Venkataswami Dr. Rajeev  Dhawan,  Sr.  Adv.,  A.P.  Dhamija,  S.K.  Jain, Pradeep Aggarawal,  N.B. Khatiwada, Umesh Bohara, Advs. with him for the appellant V.R. Redday,  Additional  Solicitor  General,  G.L.  Sanghi, Jayant Das,  Sr. Advs.  , R.K.  Mehta, Manachakraborty, M.G. Ramachandran and  Rajkumar Mehta,  Advs. with  them for  the Respondents.                       J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: NANAVATI.J.      Leave granted. Heard the learned Counsel.      The Orissa  Electrical Engineers’  Service  Association filed Original  Application No. 576[C] of 1996 in the Orissa Administrative  Tribunal,  apprehending  that  some  of  the Electrical Engineers  who are  its members  and Orissa State Government employees  on  deputation  to  the  Orissa  State Electricity  Board  (OSEB)  are  Likely  to  be  permanently transferred to the GRID Corporation of Orissa Ltd. or Orissa Hydro Power  Corporation Ltd. on OSEB being abolished, under orissa Electricity  Reform Act.  In view of the Provision of the  Act  and  the  decision  of  the  State  Government  to privatise procurement  and distribution  of electric  energy the appellant  further apprehended that the services of Such members may  be ultimately  transferred to private companies and that  will lead to losing their status as civil servants and  varying   their  service   conditions  adversely.   The appellant, therefore, wanted Section 23,24 and 25 of the Act and Scheme  Rules made thereunder to be declared ultra vires the Constitution.      The Tribunal  held that it has no jurisdiction to judge the validity  of the  said provisions.  It further held that the provisions  regarding transfer of personnel appear to be reasonable. it  was also  of the view that the OA was rather premature. It, therefore, dismissed the OA.      Dr. Dhawan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that section  24  which  empowers  the  State  Government  o

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

forcibly transfer  personnel from  one employer  to  another without giving them an option or obtaining their consent, in ultra vires  the relevant  provisions Constitution of India. He has  also raised  some contentions  in  the  alternative, including the  contention  that  the  State  Government  has failed to  ascertain the willingness of the personnel of the State Government  sent on  deputation to  OSEB in accordance with Sub-rule (7) of Rule 9 of the Orissa Electricity Reform Scheme  Rules,   1996.  As   we  are   accepting  this  last contention,  we   don  not  think  it  necessary  to  decide correctness or otherwise of the other contentions.      By  its   letter  dated  2.12.1996,  addressed  to  the personnel of  all the  cadres on  deputation to the OSEB the State Government  called for their preferences for permanent absorption in  GRIDCO/OHPC. It was stated in the said letter that "In the light of the above and in terms of Sub-rule (7) of Rule-9  ibid, the  Department of Energy, State Government invite  the   employees  to   send  their   preferences  for absorption in GRIDCO or OHPC or in the State Government. The format in  which   the willingness  and preference are to be given is  enclosed. Please  fill up  the same  and make sure that it  is sent  by post...... In case your preference does not reach  us by  the stipulated  date, your  case  will  be decided on  the assumption  that your first preference is to remain in  the organisation  to which you were provisionally assigned by  operation of  the Transfer  scheme on 1.4.1996. The transfer  of the  personnel  shall  be  decided  on  the criteria set  forth in  Rule 9(7)  of  the  Transfer  Scheme Rules......................... "  Relevant paragraphs in the format read as under:      "  1.  I  have  been  provisionally      assigned     to      work     under      OHPC/GRIDCO/State        Government      (strike   out    which    is    not      applicable)  by   virtue   of   the      Transfer   Scheme    framed   under      decision of  the Sate Government. I      understand that  I have  been given      an  opportunity   to  indicate   my      preference  in  the  matter  of  my      permanent   absorption   in   OHPC,      Gridco  or   the  State  Government      before a  final decision on this is      taken. Accordingly, I am furnishing      below my preferences:           .............. Ist Preference           .............. 2nd Preference           .............. 3rd Preference      2.  I  understand  that  while  due      consideration will  be given  to my      preferences, a  final  decision  on      the matter  will be  taken  on  the      basis of  criteria set forth in the      Transfer Scheme,  which in addition      to  the   preferences,  will   also      include the  ability and experience      of the  personnel, the  number  and      nature of  vacancies, seniority and      necessity."      On a fair reading of this letter and the format becomes apparent that what the State Government had thereby tried to ascertain was  the preference  and not  willingness of  such employees to  remain in  the service of the State Government or to  get permanently  absorbed  in  GRIDCO  or  OHPC.  The employees were  told that their preferences in the matter of

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

permanent absorption in OHPC, GRIDCO or the State Government would considered  before taking  a  final  decision  in  the matter. The  employees were  not  told  in  clear  terms  to express their  willingness to  be  permanently  absorbed  in GRIDCO or  OHPC or  to revert  to the  service of  the State Government. The fact that the State Government retained with it the  power of  taking a  final decision   in  the  matter clearly indicates  that it  wanted to  ascertain preferences only. Otherwise,  it having decided to go by the willingness of the  employees on  deputation as  reflected in Rule 9(7), would not  have stated  so in  its letter.  The record  also discloses  that   a  large  number  of  such  employees  had expressed their intention to revert to the State Service and yet they  have not  been taken  back on  the found that only limited number  of posts  in the  State Cadre are available. We, therefore,  hold that the State Government has failed to ascertain from  the State Government Electrical Engineers on deputation with  OSEB, the  willingness contemplated by Rule 9(7) of  the Rules.  We also hold that further actions taken or orders  passed on  the basis  of  such  ascertainment  of willingness are bad and, therefore, of no effect.      We, accordingly  allow this appeal and direct the State Government  to   consider  willingness   of  the  Electrical Engineers, who  are State Government employees on deputation with  OSEB,  to  revert  to  the  Stat  Service  or  to  get permanently absorbed  in GRIDCO  or OHPC  afresh. As  a long time has elapsed and it would not be desirable to reopen the cases of  all  of  such  employees,  we  direct  that  those Electrical Engineers  on deputation with OSEB who desire not to get  absorbed in  the Services  of GRIDCO  or OHPC and to revert to  the  State  Service  shall  write  to  the  State Government through  principal Secretary,  Dept of  Energy to take them  back in  State Service  according to  their lien, before 15th  January, 1998  and we  further direct the State Government to  deal with their cases in accordance with law. In case  no  such  intimation  is  given  by  any  of  those Electrical Engineers it will be open to the State Government to proceed  on the  basis that  the  concerned  employee  is willing to  remain where  he is  and  get  absorbed  in  the services of GRIDCO or OHPC as the case may be.      The appeal  is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.