MD. ISLAM & ORS. versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 57 · Decided: 23-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
57
MD. ISLAM & ORS.
v.
THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5764 of 2022)
AUGUST 23, 2022
[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Judicial Review – When not – Date of applicability of ACP
Scheme – Bihar State Employees Conditions of Service (Assured
Career Progression Scheme) Rules 2003 – ACP Scheme notified in
2003 by State of Bihar for its employees retrospectively w.e.f
09.08.99, adapted by Respondent No.1-Electricity Board through
notification dtd.05.04.05 – Subsequent notification issued by
respondent no.1 notified that the ACP Scheme would be applicable
only for the staff appointed after issuance of the earlier notification
dtd. 05.04.05– Challenged by appellants-employees in 2011 inter
alia seeking directions to respondent no.1 to also introduce the benefit
of the ACP Scheme w.e.f 09.08.99, writ petitions dismissed – On
appeal, held: Appellants were guided by service regulations of the
Electricity Board – Any notification relating to service conditions
issued by State of Bihar was neither ipso facto nor mutatis mutandis
applicable to the employees of Electricity Board unless the same
was adapted – Even if adapted, it would depend on the manner and
to the extent adapted – Further, the notification issued by State of
Bihar itself clarified that it shall not be applicable to the employees
of public sector undertakings/autonomous institutions – Respondent
No.1 is an autonomous public undertaking – Thus, mere issuance
of the said notification would not create any right in favour of its
employees – Appellants cannot contend that the Scheme should be
applicable from the very same date on which it was made applicable
to the State Govt. employees – Judicial review of the date chosen
for applicability would arise only if such choice of date is malafide
or with ulterior motive– Furthermore, even when notification dtd.
05.04.05 was issued, all other appellants except the appellant no.1
had retired – Though, appellant no.1 was in service upto 31.07.08,
neither him nor others raised any grievance till 2011 as it was clear
that the Board in its discretion had adapted the Scheme w.e.f
05.04.05 – High Court adverted to all aspects of the matter– Decision
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 57
57
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
58
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
of High Court does not call for interference– Electricity (Supply)
Act, 1948 – s.79(C).
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The fact which cannot be disputed is that even
though at an earlier point in time the Electricity Board had adapted
the Bihar Service Code of the State Government due to which all
Service Conditions, Rules and notifications applicable to the
employees of the State Government had become applicable to
the employees of the respondent No.1-Electricity Board, the
respondent No.1- Electricity Board had thereafter in exercise of
the power conferred under Section 79 (C) of the Electricity
(Supply) Act, 1948 had framed its own service regulations. The
indisputable position is that, the appellants, therefore, were
guided by the service regulations of respondent No.1-Electricity
Board. Therefore, the notification relating to service conditions
if any issued by the State of Bihar to regulate the service
conditions of its employees was neither ipso facto nor mutatis
mutandis applicable to the employees of the respondent No.1-
Electricity Board unless the same was adapted by the respondent
No.1- Electricity Board. Even if adapted, it would depend on the
manner and to the extent adapted. With this position being clear,
a perusal of the notification dated 25.06.2003 issued by the State
of Bihar will indicate, the benefit of the same is being sought by
the appellants is in relation to its applicability w.e.f 09.08.1999 as
provided therein. However, the notification on the face of it
indicates the category of employees to whom it would apply as
also the category to which it does not apply. The notification dated
25.06.2003 itself clarifies that it shall not be applicable to the
employees of public sector undertakings or autonomous
institutions. The respondent No.1 is a statutory Board which is
therefore an autonomous public undertaking. If that be the
position, the mere issue of the notification dated 25.06.2003 by
the State of Bihar would not create any right in favour of the
employees of the respondent no.1-Electricity Board for the
benefits provided under such notification. The notifications dated
05.04.2005 and 07.10.2005 become relevant in the

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