STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus POORAN CHANDRA PANDEY AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 920 · Decided: 09-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR, MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 
v. 
POORAN CHANDRA PANDEY AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 9, 2007 
B 
[A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ;] 
Service Law: 
c 
Daily wage employees-Regularization of-Co-operative Electric 
Supply Society-Taken over by UP. Electricity Board-Decision of 
Board to regularize services of its daily wage employees-Not 
implemented in respect of the employees of erstwhile Society though 
taken over by and working in the Board "in the same manner and 
D position"-Their writ petition allowed by High Court-HELD: Writ 
petitioners have to be deemed to have been appointed in the service 
\ 
of the Electricity Board.from the date of their original appointment in 
the Society-Since they were all appointed in the society before 
4.5.1990, they cannot be denied the benefit of the decision of Electricity 
E Board dated 28.11.1996 permitting regularization of its employees who 
were working before 4. 5.1990-To take a contrary view would violate 
Article 14 of the Constitution-Jn the instant case many of writ 
petitioners have been working.from 1985 i.e. ·they have put in about 
22 years' service and it will surely not be reasonable if their claim for 
;f 
F regularization is denied even after such a long period of service-
Hence apart from discrimination, Article 14 of the Constitution will 
also be violated on the ground of arbitrariness and unreasonableness 
if employees who have put in such a long service are denied the benefit 
of regularization and are made to face the same selection process 
which fresh recruits have to face-Constitution of India-Article 14. 
G 
·y 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 14-Reasonableness in executive action-Decision of UP. 
Electricity Board to regularize services of its daily wage employees-
H 
920 
y 
U.P. STATEELECTRICITYBOARDv. POORAN 
921 
CHANDRA PANDEY 
Not implemented in respect of employees of erstwhile Society taken A 
over by the Board and working with it-HELD: Reasonableness and 
non-arbitrariness is part of Article 14-lt follows that the 
government must act in a reasonable and non-arbitrary manner 
otherwise Article 14 would be violated-Uma Devi's* case is to be 
read in conformity with Article 14 and it cannot be read in a manner B 
which will make it in conflict therewith-No doubt, Maneka 
Gandhi's** case does not specifically deal with the question of 
regularization of government employees, but the principle of 
reasonableness in executive action and the law which it has laid 
down, is of general application-Often Uma Devi's case is being c 
applied by Courts mechanically without seeing the facts of a 
particular case-A little difference in facts or even one additional 
fact may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a 
decision-Precedent. 
*Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) & Ors., D 
[2006] 4SCC1, Explained and distinguished. 
**Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr., AIR (1978) SC 
597, followed. 
State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra, AIR (1968) SC 647; E 
Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat & Ors., [1987] 1 SCC 
213; Bhuvnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd, [2003] 
2SCC111 and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. NR. 
Vairamani & Anr., AIR (2004) SC 4778, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3765 
of 2001. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 3.1.2000 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Special 
F 
'f 
Appeal No. 364 (SB) of 1998. 
G 
Aneesh Mittal, Subrajyoti Borthakur and Sunil Kumar Jain for the 
Appellant. 
S.R. Singh, Ashwani Garg and Vijay Kumar for the Respondents. 
H 
)&.. 
922 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
\ 
A 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 
B 
2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and 
order dated 3.1.2000 in SA No. 364/1999 of the Division Bench of the 
Allahabad Higl} Court (Lucknow Bench) whereby the Division Bench has 
affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.9.1998 in 
Writ Petition No. 4027(SS) of 1998. 
C 
3. By means of the writ petition, 34 petitioners who were daily wage 
employees of the Cooperative Electric Supply Society (hereinafter 
referred to as 'the Society') had prayed for regularization of their services 
in the U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Electricity 
Board'. It appears that the Society had been taken over by the Electricity 
D Boa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.