The court ruled that benefits of service continuity under relevant statutes apply only to employees transferred before a specified date, and invalidated the government order extending this benefit to later appointments.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners have instituted this writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P15 G.O.(Ms) No.4/2022/POWER dated 21.04.2022, which is issued on the basis of the directions / findings contained in Ext.P14 judgment of the Apex Court and Ext.P16 proceedings of the 3^rd respondent admittedly issued on the basis of the mandate under Ext.P15 Government Pleader.

2. Heard Sri.Rakesh T.T, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, the learned Senior Government Pleader and Sri.K.S.Anil, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Ext.P15 has been instituted on the basis of the directions contained in Ext.P14 judgment of the Apex Court and while issuing the afore order, ultimately, the directions contained in Ext.P14 have been flouted. He would also state that since Ext.P15 has been issued in total disregard to the directions / findings contained in Ext.P14, the proceeding of the 3^rd respondent at Ext.P16, admittedly issued with reference to the mandate under Ext.P15, is also to be set aside.

4. The State as well as the Board have filed separate counter affidavits seeking to justify the conclusions in Ext.P15 Government Order.

5. As regards the challenge against Ext.P15, this Court notices that the Apex Court has issued the following directions:-

“23 The next question that requires to be examined is regarding the exercise of powers by the Government of Kerala in issuing order dated 13.02.2019. Drawing from the interpretation of the relevant provisions as discussed above, promotion and other service conditions of the officers and employees transferred to KSEBL under the transfer scheme are protected under Section 131 and 133(2) of the Electricity Act in conjunction with the transfer scheme and the tripartite agreement. The explanation to Section 133 makes it clear that "officers and employees" referred to in the section are only those officers and employees of the Board on the date of transfer scheme, i.e. on 31.10.2013. By no stretch of imagination can this protection be extended to the employees who were engaged by KSEBL after 31.10.2013. The High Court was right in setting aside the order dated 13.02.2019 which permitted deviation from Regulations 6 and 7 to all appointments made till the date of issuance of order dated 13.02.2019, even after the transfer scheme dated 31.10.2013. By the impugned judgment, the High Court restricted the applicability of the order dated 13.02.2019 to such of those employees transferred from KSEB prior to

31.10.2013.

24. Safety is an important issue which the Central Electricity Authority has dealt with in the Safety Regulations enacted in 2010. Mr. P.V. Dinesh, learned counsel for the KSEBL submitted that the track record of the personnel working in the Board has been exemplary and their support was even sought by the States of Orrisa and Tamil Nadu in the past. He submitted a chart to bolster his submission that the electrical accidents are much less in Kerala compared to the other States. Mr. Dinesh further stated that efforts would be made to appoint eligible and qualified personnel in the generating stations, electrical plants and key positions in transmission and distribution lines. As the exercise of power by the State Government in issuance of the order dated 13.02.2019 is well within its jurisdiction, grant of exemption in favour cannot be termed as arbitrary. However, the extension of the continuity to employees appointed after 31.10.2013 is not reasonable and only the transferred employees are entitled for protection of their service conditions. Therefore, we approve the findings recorded by