The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the State Government's power to issue directions to the Kerala State Electricity Board under S.78A of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, and the consequences of the Board's decision influenced by an illegal directive.

Headnote:
Kerala State Electricity Board - Service Conditions - Electricity Supply Act, 1948, S.79(c), S.78A - The court discussed the provisions of S.79(c) and S.78A of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, and their limitations on the power of the State Government to issue directions to the Board. The court held that the Government's directive was beyond its powers under S.78A, and the Board's decision influenced by the directive was also illegal.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Executive Engineer in the Electricity Department of the State, was transferred to the Kerala State Electricity Board with guarantees as to conditions of service. The Government raised the age of superannuation, and the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to retain him till the new retirement age. The Government subsequently reduced the retirement age, leading to the petitioner's challenge of the directive and the Board's proceedings.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Government's directive was beyond its powers and influenced the Board's decision, rendering it illegal. The petitioner's right to continue in service was founded on proceedings influenced by the illegal directive, and issuing the writ sought would perpetuate the illegal orders.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the Government's directive under S.78A, the influence of the directive on the Board's decision, and the petitioner's entitlement to continue in service based on proceedings influenced by the illegal directive.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Government's directive under S.78A was beyond its powers, and the Board's decision influenced by the directive was also illegal. The petitioner's right to continue in service was founded on proceedings influenced by the illegal directive, and issuing the writ sought would perpetuate the illegal orders.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Writ Petition without any order as to costs.

Judgment :-

1. At the time of the formation of the Kerala State Electricity Board on 141957, the petitioner was an Executive Engineer in the Electricity Department of the State. Along with other members of the said Department, he was transferred to the service of the Board, subject to certain guarantees as to conditions of service which were embodied in Ext. P-1 G. P. dated 3rd April 1957, generally referred to as the "Guarantee G. P."

2. Under S.79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, (referred to hereafter as the Act) the Board was entitled to make rules to provide inter alia for the salaries and other conditions of service of its officers and servants. No such separate rules were framed; and the Board was content to adopt the Kerala Service Rules (compendiously referred to as the K. S. R.), framed under Art.309 of the Constitution and relating to the conditions of service of Government Servants, as the Rules of the Board. It further ordered that the amendments to the K. S. R. already issued and to be issued from time to time and the clarifications thereto would apply to the Board, unless excluded by specific order (vide Exts. P-1, R-1 and R-2).

3. The petitioner became Chief Engineer under the Board on 6 31965 and, according to the rules of superannuation as they then stood, was due to retire on the completion of 55 years of age on 19 71966. By Ext. P-4 proceedings, the Board ordered his retirement on that day. But before the date of retirement, the Government raised the age of superannuation of technical personnel from 55 to 58, with effect from 15 7 1966. The benefit was eventually extended to all Government Personnel, and ultimately resulted in the amendment of R.60 of Part I of the K. S. R. raising the age of superannuation to 58. A directive to the Board was issued by the Government (copy Ext. P-5-dated 18 71966) under S.78A of the Act, directing the Board to raise the age of retirement of technical personnel serving under it. The Board complied by Ext. P-8 dated 19 71966. By Ext. P-9 proceedings dated 26 81966 a similar benefit was extended to all other employees of the Board. The Board's order directing retirement of the petitioner was itself countermanded by Ext. P-6 dated 19 71966.

4. After the Government's directive Ext. P-5, and before the further developments noticed supra, the petitioner moved O. P. No. 2560 of 1966 in this Court, for a writ of mandamus to compel the Board to retain the petitioner till completion of 58 years of age as contemplated by the Government proceedings raising the age of superannuation of technical personnel. The writ petition was eventually dismissed as infructuous, presumably in view of the issuance of Ext. P-8 proceedings (vide Ext. R-4). By a G. O. dated 4 51967 (Ext. P-9), the Government reduced the age of retirement from 58 to 55 and the consequential

amendment was again carried out to R.60 of Part I of the K. S. R. with effect from 4 51967 (vide Ext. P-12). Before such amendment, a directive under S.78A of the Act was again issued to the Board to effect a similar reduction in the age of superannuation of its employees. Ext. P-13 dated 3 61967 is a copy of the said directive. By Ext. P-14 proceedings dated 7 61967 the Board cancelled its earlier proceedings Exts. P-2 and P-9. The petitioner seeks to quash the Government's directive (Ext. P-13) and the Board's proceedings (Ext. P-14) and prays for a writ of mandamus, directing the Board not to take any action in pursuance of Ext. P-14.

5. The main contention advanced before us is that the Government's directive Ext. P-13 is unwarranted by the provisions of the Act; and the Board's proceedings Ext. P-14, having been dictated to, or at least substantially influenced by the said directive, is also illegal. S.78A of the Act introduced by the Amending Act 101 of 1956 reads as follows:

"78A(1) In the discharge of its functions, the Board shall be guided by such directions on questions of policy as may be given to it by the State Government

Click Here to Read the rest of this document