Important Point
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 to the employer to make transfers within the cadre and for such transfers a specific order of inter-changeability is not required under law.

Headnote:(i) Service Jurisprudence-U.P. State Electricity Board decided to amalgamate three category of officers, viz., Metre Readers, Sub-Station Officers and Switch Board Officers in 1963 and that these three categories of employees will be interchangeable-Division Bench of High Court holding that it was not a Board decision but decision of an officer of Board who in fact only communicated the decision of Board to all the Chief Engineers of the Board-Result-Division Bench set aside and judgment of single Judge restored-These appeals allowed.
       Held : On scrutiny of the documents available on record we find that three category of officers, 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 Meter Tester and 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 U.P. 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 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. (Para 11)
       (ii) Electricity Supply Act, 1948 -Section 79(C)-Regulation framed under by U.P. State Electricity Board laying down service conditions of the operational employees of the Board-Under the regulation different posts clubbed together constituting a cadre-Contention that different posts having different qualifications and duties are put in one cadre and this contrary to Art. 14 of Constitution-Whether correct? (No)-These appeals dismissed.
       Held : The power of the Board as employer to constitute a cadre by amalgamating different posts under the Board is 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 and formation of a unified cadre. But the question for consideration is whether really there exists any such illegality in the case in hand? 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. (Para 18)
       Consequently held : 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 cause and cannot be said to be hit by the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 19)

Judgment

Pattanaik, J.-Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

2. 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. At 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 Station 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 24.3.1977 whereunder the posts of Junior Meter Tester/Junior Meter Tester and Repairer were also 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 24.3.1977 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 fetter on the power 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 until further orders. By yet another order issued by t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 855

Cases Referred (1)