Back
2007(7) Supreme 374
Supreme Court of india
(From Allahabad High Court)
A.K. Mathur & Markandey Katju, JJ.
U.P. State Electricity Board — Petitioner
versus
Pooran Chandra Pandey & others — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 3765 of 2001
Decided on : 09-10-2007
(b)Precedent – The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case – A case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it – A little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision.(Paras 12 to 15)
AIR 1968 SC 647; (1987) 1 SCC 213; (1987) 1 SCC 213; (2003) 2 SCC 111; AIR 2004 SC 4778 – Relied upon.
(c)Constitution of India – Article 14 – Government must act in a reasonable and non-arbitrary manner so as not to violate Article 14. (Para 18)
AIR 1978 SC 597 – Relied upon.
(d)Service Law – Regularisation – Petitioners were daily wager employees of Rural Electric Cooperative Society – Electricity Board taking over the Society with employees who joined before the cut-off date in the ‘same manner and position’ – It follows that petitioners became deemed employees of the Board from the cut-off date – Their claim for parity with the Board’s original employees in service matters including regularisation cannot be denied – Further, many of the petitioners have put in about 22 years’ service and it will surely not be reasonable if their claim for regularization is denied even after such a long period of service – High Court’s judgment upheld. (Paras 17 and 19)
(2006) 4 SCC 1 – Distinguished.
Facts of the case:
By means of the writ petition, 34 petitioners who were daily wage employees of the Cooperative Electric Supply Society had prayed for regularization of their services in the U.P. State Electricity Board. It appears that the Society had been taken over by the Electricity Board on 3.4.1997. In the said proceeding, it was mentioned that the daily wage employees of the Society who are being taken over by the Board will start working in the Electricity Board ‘in the same manner and position’.
Pursuant to the said proceeding, the respondents herein were absorbed in the service of the Electricity Board.
Earlier, the Electricity Board had taken a decision on 28.11.1996 to regularize the services of its employees working on daily wage basis from before 4.5.1990 on the existing vacant posts and that an examination for selection would be held for that purpose.
The contention of the writ petitioners (respondents herein) was that since the Society had been taken over by the Electricity Board, the decision dated 28.11.1996 taken by the Electricity Board with regard to its daily wage employees will also be applicable to the employees of the Society who were working from before 4.5.1990 and whose services stood transferred to the Electricity Board and who were working with the Electricity Board on daily wage basis.
The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 21.9.1998 held that there was no ground for discriminating between two sets of employees who are daily wagers, namely, (i) the original employees of the Electricity Board and (ii) the employees of the Society, who subsequently became the employees of the Electricity Board when the Society was taken over by the Electricity Board. This view of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Findings of the Court:
No infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
order
1.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2.This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 3.1.2000 in SA No. 364/1999 of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) whereby the Division Bench has affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.9.1998 in Writ Petition No. 4027(SS) of 1998.
3.By means of the writ petition, 34 petitioners who were daily wage employees of the Cooperative Electric Supply Society (hereinafter referred to as the Society) had prayed for regularization of their services in the U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Electricity Board. It appears that the Society had been taken over by the Electricity Board on 3.4.1997. A copy of the minutes of the proceeding dated 3.4.1997 is Annexure P-2 to this appeal. That proceeding was presided over by the Minister of Cooperatives, U.P. Government and there were a large number of senior officers of the State government present in the proceeding. In the said proceeding, it was mentioned that the daily wage employees of the Society who are being taken over by the Board will start working in the Electricity Board in the same manner and position.
4.Pursuant to the said proceeding, the respondents herein were absorbed in the service of the Electricity Board.
5.Earlier, the Electricity Board had taken a decision on 28.11.1996 to regularize the services of its employees working on daily wage basis from before 4.5.1990 on the existing vacant posts and that an examination for selection would be held for that purpose.
6.The contention of the writ petitioners (respondents herein) was that since the Society had been taken over by the Electricity Board, the decision dated 28.11.1996 taken by the Electricity Board with regard to its daily wage employees will also be applicable to the employees of the Society who were working from before 4.5.1990 and whose services stood transferred to the Electricity Board and who were working with the Electricity Board on daily wage basis.
7.The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 21.9.1998 held that there was no ground for discriminating between two sets of employees who are daily wagers, namely, (i) the original employees of the Electricity Board and (ii) the employees of the Society, who subsequently became the employees of the Electricity Board when the Society was taken over by the Electricity Board. This view of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court.
8.We are in agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge.
9.The writ petitioners who were daily wagers in the service of the Society were appointed in the Society before 4.5.1990 and their services were taken over by the Electricity Board in the same manner and position. In our opinion, this would mean that their services in the Society cannot be ignored for considering them for the benefit of the order dated 28.11.1996.
10.In our opinion, the proceeding dated 3.4.1997 makes it clear that the employees of the Society should be deemed to be the employees of the Electricity Board with continuity of their service in the Society, and it is not that they would be treated as fresh appointees by the Electricity Board when their services were taken over by the Electricity Board. In this view of the matter, the writ petitioners (respondents herein) are entitled to the benefit of the order of the Electricity Board dated 28.11.1996. This view also finds support from the affidavit of Shri Ramapati Dubey, Chief Engineer, R.P.M.O., U.P. State Electricity Board in which it is mentioned that “In this way, the Board Order dated 28.11.1996, a copy of which has been filed as Annesxure No. 5 to the writ petition, has been complied with and the employees of the Cooperative Electric Supply Society have been given the same status and benefit of regularization in the similar manner as it was given to the employees of the Board”.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
