ELECTRICITY EMPLOYMENT UNION ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 29-08-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

--
ELECTRICITY EMPLOYMENT UNION ETC. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 29, 2000 
[V.N. KHARE AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966-Sections 67, 82, 83 and 84-
Erstwhile State of Punjab split into States of Punjab and Haryana and Union C 
Territories of Chandigarh and Himachal Pradesh-Employees of erstwhile 
Electric fly Board working in Union Territory of Chandigarh-Held, services 
of employees are allocated to Punjab State Electricity Board working on 
deputation in the Union Territory. 
D 
The erstwhile State of Punjab was split into States of Punjab and 
Haryana and Union Territories of Chandigarh and Himachal Pradesh (which 
subsequently became a State) with the passing of Punjab Re-organization Act, 
1966. However, the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board continued to 
function in the successor States. Subsequently, a new State Electricity Board E 
was constituted by the successor State of Punjab. Appellants were employees 
of the erstwhile Board wgrking in Union Territory of Chandigarh. The 
appellants claimed that with the passing of the Act, their services were deemed 
to be allocated to the Union Territory under Section 83 of the Act The Central 
Administrative Tribunal rejected the claims of the appellants and held that as 
per the agreements entered into among the successor States under section F 
67(3) of the Act, their services were allocated to the Board of State of Punjab 
and that they were working on deputation in the Union Territory. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that their services were 
deemed to have been absorbed under the administration of the Union Territory 
as they were working there on the date of re-organisation in view of section G 
83 of the Act; that certain letters exchanged between the Government oflndia 
and the Union Territory indicate that there were directions to treat the 
employees of the erstwhile State of Punjab as employees of the Union 
Territory, which are binding; that such directions were deemed to be issued 
under Section 84 of the Act. 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
<Respondents contended that a.s per.the report of the Committee, which 
was constituted for appointment of staff and posts of the erstwhile Punjab State 
Electricity Board among the successor States, the persons who were posted 
in the Union Territory should be allowed to continue on deputation. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. The Government oflndia, by a letter, only conveyed the 
opinion of the Law Ministry and asked for the views of the Union Territory of 
Chandigarh. In view of the language of the letter, it cannot be treated as 
direction issued under section 67(3) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act. This 
c 
letter shows that the appellants were on deputation to the Union Territory of 
Chandigarh which demolishes the contention of the appellants that they have 
been absorbed by the Union Territory of Chandigarh. Moreover as within one 
year, there was an agreement regarding allocation of employees of the 
erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board between the successor States, the 
Government of India could not have exercised the power of issuing direction 
D as envisaged under section 67(3) of the Act. Such allocation of employees of 
the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board could be done only urider section 
67(3) and not under Section 82 of the Act and no direction could be issu.ed by 
the Central Government in respect of such employees under the above section. 
[10-F-H; 11-A) 
E 
1.2. The object of Section 83 of the Act was to allow the holder of any 
post or office in the erstwhile State of Punjab to continue to discharge the 
function of the said post or office on the date the successor States were formed, 
otherwise for every such post or office it would have been necessary for the 
successor States to pass orders re-appointing the holder of the post or office 
F to continue to discharge his function. The members of the erstwhile Punjab 
• 
State Electricity Board cannot claim deemed absorption under this ~ection 
merely because on the date the successor States were formed, they were 
working within the geographical limits of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. 
[11-D-E] 
G 
Mohd. Yakub v. The Union of India & Ors., AIR (1971) Delhi 45 FB, 
relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10705 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.7.95 of the Central administrative 
H T

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.