LexRAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, JAIPUR versus MOHAN LAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, JAIPUR v. MOHAN LAL & ORS. April 3, 1967 [K. SUBBA RAO, C.J., J. C. SHAH, J. M. SHBLAT, V. BHARGAVA B AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] c D E F G H Employer and employee-Employees of State Electricity Board- Trans/erred to Board by State Government and treated as pmnane11t em- ployees of Board-No order making rhem permanent-If permanent em- ployus of Board. Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 12-"0ther authority', n>!aning of. Electricity (Supply) Act (54 of 1948)-.s'tate Electricity Board co11- ,1·1ituted under Act-If "State". In 1958 the services of respondents I and 4 to 14, who were per- manent em~loyees of the State C?overnment holding posts C?f. foremen. were provis1onally placed at the disposal of the State Electnc1ty Board (appellant) constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, The Electricity Board was directed to frame its own grades and service condi- tions, but this was never done. Jn 1960, the first respondent was taken on deputation from the Board and posted to the P.W.D. of the State Gov- vernment retaining his lien in the Electricity Board. The first respondent remained with the P.W.D. for about three years, and during that time, the Electricity Board promoted respondents 4 to 14 as Assistant En- gineers under the Electricity Board. In 1963, the State Government directed the reversion of the first respondent to his parent department, namely, the Electricity Board; and the latter posted him as one of its fore- men. When hi• request that he was also entitled to be considered for pro- motion as Assistant Engineer was rejected, he moved the High Coun under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution the ground that there was a viola- tion of Ans. 14 and 16; and the High Coun allowed the petition. In appeal to this Coun, the appellant-Board contended that : (1) the first respondent never became its permanent servant and so could not claim to be considered along with respondents 4 to 14; and (2) the ap- pellant-Board could not be held to be "State" as defined in Art. 12 and consequently no direction could be issued to it under Art. 226 and 227. HELD : (I) The words "deputation" and "reversion" used in the orders of the State Government and the Electricity Board implied that the first '":"l?"ndent was being sent back to his parent department, namely, the Elec- tric1ty_ Board, from the P.W.D. where he had been sent on deputation. More- over Ill the case of respondents 4 to 14 who were identically placed with th.e first respondent, there was nothing to show that after their services were provisionally placed at the dispooal of the Board any order was !>'Ssed permanently transferring them to the Board, and yet they were treated as permanent employees of the Board. Thus, both the Government an~ the Board, in dealing with respondent 1 and 4 to 14, treated them as 11 they bad become employees of the Board. Since the Board did not frame any new grades or service conditions, these respondents continued to he governed by identical rules, namely, the old grades and service con- ditions applicable to them when they were servants of the State Govern- ment ~d therefore, the first respondent was entitled to be considered for promotion under the Board on the basis of equality with respondents 4 to 14. [381E-F; 3820-HJ 378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1967] 3 S.C.R (2) (Per Subba Rao, C.J., Shela!, Bhargava and Mitter JJ.): The appellant-Board is "other authority" within the meaning of Art 12 and therefore, is "State" to which appropriate directions could be given under Arts. 226 and 227. [386D] The expression "other authority" is wide enough to include within it every authority created by a statute, on which powers are conferred to carry out governmental or quasi-governmental functions and function- ing within the territory of India o·r under the control of the Government of India, It is not at all material that some of the powers conferred may be for the purpose of carrying on commercial activ:ties, because, under Arts 19(1)(g) and 298 even the State is empowered to carry on any trade or business. In interpreting the expression "other authority" the principle of ejusdem generis should not be applied, because, for the. applica- tion of that rule, there must be distinct genus or category running through the bodies previously named. The bodies specially named in Art. 12 are the Executive Government of the Union and the State
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.