Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna, JJ.
Md. Islam & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.5764 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.9603 of 2019)
Decided On : 23-08-2022
(A) Service Law – Promotion – [Bihar State Employees Conditions of Service (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003] – Even though at an earlier point in time Electricity Board had adapted Bihar Service Code of State Government due to which all Service Conditions, Rules and notifications applicable to employees of State Government had become applicable to employees of respondent No.1-Electricity Board, respondent No.1- Electricity Board had thereafter in exercise of power conferred under Section 79 (C) of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 had framed its own service regulations – Appellants were guided by service regulations of respondent No.1-Electricity Board – As such, notification relating to service conditions issued by State of Bihar to regulate service conditions of its employees was neither ipso facto nor mutatis mutandis applicable to employees of respondent No.1-Electricity Board unless same was adapted by respondent No.1-Electricity Board – Even if adapted, it would depend on manner and to the extent adapted – Notification dated 25.06.2003 issued by State of Bihar, on face of it, indicates category of employees to whom it would apply as also category to which it does not apply – It shall not be applicable to employees of public sector undertakings or autonomous institutions. (Paras 9, 10 and 11)
(B) Service Law – Promotion – [Bihar State Employees Conditions of Service (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003] – Respondent No.1 is a statutory Board which is an autonomous public undertaking – Mere issue of notification dated 25.06.2003 by State of Bihar would not create any right in favour of employees of respondent no.1-Electricity Board for benefits provided under such notification – Notifications dated 05.04.2005 and 07.10.2005 become relevant in the matter of granting benefit of ACP Scheme to employees of respondent No.1-Electricity Board since there can be no claim until it is adapted – Respondent No.1-Electricity Board did not adapt ACP Scheme of 2003 retrospectively w.e.f 09.08.1999 as was done by State Government for its employees – Appellants, in any event, cannot contend that Scheme should be applicable from very same date on which it had been made applicable to State Government employees when respondent no.1-Electricity Board had discretion to either adapt or not to adapt Scheme – When Board had decided to adapt, in such event it has also discretion to alter date of its applicability as against date notified by State Government – Any judicial review on date chosen for applicability would arise only if such choice of date is demonstrated to be malafide or with ulterior motive – In instant case, date chosen is date on which scheme was adapted and advantage or disadvantage thereof would befall on all employees across board depending on which side of fence they are as on such date – Judgment of High Court upheld – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Appellants are before this Court claiming to be aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.12.2018 passed by Division Bench, High Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA No.342/2018. Through the said judgment, Division Bench has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein while upholding the judgment dated 09.01.2018 passed by Single Judge of that Court, in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13837/2011. Single Judge had dismissed writ petition along with the analogous petitions which were considered and disposed of by a common judgment.
Findings of Court:
Decision of the Board to adapt the ACP Scheme of 2003 was only for the staff appointed after issuance of the Board’s notification No.25 dated 05.04.2005. The same indicates that respondent No.1-Electricity Board did not adapt the ACP Scheme of 2003 retrospectively w.e.f 09.08.1999 as was done by the State government for its employees but had given prospective effect from the date the respondent no. 1-Electricity Board had adapted the same through the notification dated 05.04.2005.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
A.S. Bopanna, J.
1. The appellants are before this Court claiming to be aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.12.2018 passed by the Division Bench, High Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA No.342/2018. Through the said judgment, the Division Bench has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein while upholding the judgment dated 09.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of that Court, in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13837/2011. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition along with the analogous petitions which were considered and disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The appellant No.1 was an employee who retired from the service of respondent No.1 – the Bihar State Electricity Board on 31.07.2008. The appellants No.10 and 11 are the spouse of the deceased employees. The spouse of the appellant No.10, 11 and the other appellants retired on 31.01.2005. The appellants, through their writ petitions filed in the year 2011 had sought for issuance of directions to respondent No.1- Electricity Board to introduce the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme (‘ACP’ for short) with effect from 09.08.1999 and as a consequence thereof to pay all monetary benefits. The said relief was prayed to be granted by quashing the resolution no.8165 dated 22.09.2005 and the notification dated 07.10.2005 issued by the respondent No.1 Electricity Board.
3. The brief facts leading to the case is that the appellants were appointed in the respondent No.1-Electricity Board as Junior Engineers/Overseers over a period of time and were subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers. As noted, the petitioners before the learned Single Judge had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on different dates between 31.12.2000 to 31.01.2005, and insofar as appellants herein, except for appellant No.1 who retired on 31.07.2008, all others had retired prior to 31.01.2005. When this was the position, the Government of Bihar through the Finance Department notified on 25.06.2003, the Bihar State Employees Conditions of Service (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules 2003, (‘ACP Scheme’ for short). The same was introduced by the State of Bihar for its employees on 25.06.2003 but the scheme provided that it shall come into force w.e.f 09.08.1999. The notification had specified that the scheme shall not be applicable to the teachers of Nationalised Schools and employees of the public undertakings or autonomous institutions, assisted partially or fully, by the State Government. Thus, the scheme, by itself was not applicable to the respondent No.1 - Electricity Board until they chose to adapt the same. It is in that view, the respondent No.1 - Electricity Board through the notification dated 05.04.2005 adapted the ACP Scheme of 2003. Subsequent thereto, a notification dated 07.10.2005 was issued, notifying that the said ACP Scheme of 2003 would be applicable only for the staff appointed after the issuance of the earlier notification dated 05.04.2005. This was with a view to clarify that the scheme though adapted was not w.e.f 09.08.1999 as was in the case of Government employees.
4. Though, the initial notification dated 05.04.2005 and the subsequent notification clarifying the date of its applicability were notified on 07.10.2005, as on such date, insofar as the appellants herein are concerned, all the other appellants except appellant No.1 had retired and even though appellant No.1 was in service and had retired on 31.07.2008, they did not make any grievance with regard to the same until the year 2011 when the writ petition was filed. In the writ petition, the respondents were notified and respondent No.1- Electricity Board had filed a detailed objection explaining its stand on the applicability of the ACP Scheme of 2003 w.e.f 05.04.2005. The learned Single Judge having adverted to the rival contentions, had noted
SupremeToday
The entitlement to benefits under the ACP Scheme was not automatic and was subject to review and consideration by the employer. The nature of benefits under the MACP Scheme was considered as incentiv....
The MACP guarantees financial advancement to the immediate next higher grade pay, not promotional posts, and unapproved executive orders cannot override statutory regulations.
(1) Promotion – Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme – Date of operation of new pay scales cannot be per se the same when operation of another scheme (which may also involve pay benefits) need ....
The appointment as a Trainee Engineer was not a substantive appointment, and subsequent rules and decisions made by UPPCL were valid and binding on the petitioners.
Promotion – An employee who has opted to remain in existing grade, by refusing offer of promotion, forfeits rights to ACP benefits and such employee, on account of refusal, can be considered for regu....
The MACP Scheme is an incentive-based condition of service effective from 01.09.2008, and not a component of pay structure, denying retrospective claims from 01.01.2006.
The Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme must consider prior service for promotion, and the promotion date should reflect actual service milestones rather than the scheme's effective date.
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
