HYDRO-ELECTRIC EMPLOYEES UNION, U.P. AND ORS. versus SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 105 · Decided: 25-08-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR

Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
HYDRO-ELECTRIC EMPLOYEES UNION, U.P. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. ETC. 
AUGUST 25, 1998 
(SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
U.P. Electlicity Supply Act, 1948 Section 79 (c)-U.P. State Electlicity 
Board Operational Employees Catego1y Se1vice Regulation, 195~Regulation 
4, 38(2)-Amalgamation of posts of three categ01ies in one cadre-Posts cmc 
B 
1yi11g similar functions-Held, amalgamation is proper. 
C 
Fonnation of unified cadre-Amalgamation posts-Whether specific 
provision for interchangeability essential-Held, no-fVlzen there is a unified 
cadre there is no requirement of specific order of interchangeability. 
Constitution of lndia-A1ticle 14-Amalgamation of post:.~Validity D 
of-Posts canying similar re:.ponsibilities-Past practice of interchangeability 
betwee11 the categ01ie:.~Held, no violation of equality clause-Provision 
_,upheld. 
Indust1ial Disputes Act-Section 4 (i) Proviso II-Wlzether regulation 
of amalgamation of posts requires ·p1ior notice-Held, no-The regulations 
since notified i11 official gazette, no p1ior notice is required. 
The appellants-Meter Readers in U.P. State Electricity Board chal-
lenged the amalgamation of post of Meter Readers, Sub-Station Operators 
E 
and Switch Board Attendants under the Board and the validity and F 
constitutionality of the regulation framed by the Board under Section 79(c) 
of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. The Board had initially taken a decision 
in 1963 for a combined cadre of the above categories of employees so that 
their services would be interchangeable. The aforesaid decision was 
modified in 1977 by which two other posts were included in the combined 
cadre. When it was challenged before the High Conrt in 1975 it was clearly G 
stated that it was within the authority of the Board to create a combined 
cadre of service consisting of all the posts and that there has been no 
contravention of any law in combining the aforesaid posts into one cadre. 
Thereafter in another batch of writ petition filed in 1977 it was held that 
as a matter of policy it is open for the employer to integrate various cadres H 
105 
106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A into one and there is no fetter on the power of the Board to integrate such 
cadres. The interchangeability order was kept in abeyance for some time 
and in 1994 the Board took a resoiution to again resort to the proposal of 
interchangeability among the Meter Readers, Sub-Station Operation and 
Switch Board Attendants and issued an order to that effect. 
B 
The appellants - Meter Readers filed writ petitions in the High Court 
challenging the order which was dismissed by the Single Judge. The Single 
Judge of the High Court held that the SSOs/SBAs and Meter Readers had 
been working in integrated manner, that the decision has been taken as 
early as in 1963 and no notice was reciuired to be given to the employees 
C while lifting the abeyance order in 1994, that the policy decision to in-
tegrate three categories of employees into one cadre was taken by the 
Board after due deliberation and on obtaining necessary technical advice, 
and that there is no error of law/jurisdiction or patent illegality in passing 
the order by the Board. Allowing the appeals by the employees the Division 
D Bench held that the Board had not taken any decision of amalgamating 
the three categories of officers into one cadre and the decision of the Board 
has only directed interchangeability of the meter readers, SSOs and SBAs 
by way of transfer to each other's cadres that the policy of amalgamation 
amounts to change of service conditions and therefore notice is reciuired 
to be given to the employees under section 4 (i) of the Industrial Disputes 
E Act. 
The appellants also challenged the regulation under Section 79 (c) 
of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 whereby different posts were brought 
under one cadre. The High Court upheld the validity and held that there 
F is no infirmity in the regulation so as to be interfered with. 
On appeal before this Court the appellants-Board contended that 
the findings of the High Court is based on total misreading of the resolu-
tions of the Board passed from time to time and; that since 1963 all the 
categories having been merged into one combined cadre no grievance can 
G be made in 1994; that once the cadre is formed consisting of different 
category of officers, under service jurisprudence they are liable to be 
transferred from one post 

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