Full Judgment Text
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.