THE MEGHALAYA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. versus SHRI JAGADINDRA ARJUN

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 233 · Decided: 02-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

THE MEGHALA YA ST ATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. 
A 
V. 
SHRI JAGADINDRA ARJUN 
AUGUST 2, 2001 
[M.B. SHAH AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
B 
Electricity (Supply) Act, I 948: Sections 5, I 5, 78A and 79. 
Electricity Board-Employee-Service conditions-Absence of 
Regulations-Board can prescribe service conditions by Administrative order C 
and resolution. 
Service law-Compulsory retirement-Electricity Board-Adoption of 
Government memo prescribing procedure and provision of compulsory 
retirement-Held valid-Order of compulsory retirement-Held valid. 
Pursuant to a Resolution passed on 10.5.1989, the Appellant-Electricity 
Board adopted office Memorandum No. PER. 218n5/106 dated 21.7.1988 of 
D 
the Government of Meghalaya concerning the premature retirement of 
Government servants. An order passed by the Appellant-Board compulsorily 
retiring the respondent from service was unsuccessfully challenged by the E 
latter before a Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court. On appeal, the 
Division Bench of the High Court reversed the judgment of Single Judge. It 
held that the resolution dated 10.5.1989 passed by Appellant-Board only 
adopts the procedure prescribed by the Government of Meghalaya in its 
Memorandum dated 21.7.1988 and that the Appell~nt-Board has not adopted 
the power of compulsory retirement by passing the aforesaid resolution. 
F 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the respondent 
that in the absence of any Regulation framed by the Electricity Board under 
Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 governing the service 
conditions of its employees or for compulsory retirement before 
superannuation it was not open to the Appellant Board to issue the impugned G 
order; and that service conditions could not be prescribed by the Board by 
passing a resolution. 
Allowing the appeal of the Electricity Board and setting aside the 
impugned
1order, the Court 
f 
233 
H 
234 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
HELD .:.1 !~]lie reason given by the High Court that the appellant-
Board has not adbpted the power of compulsory retirement by passing the 
resolution is without referring to the resolution passed by the Board and the 
office memo issued by the government. The Government Memorandum dated 
21.7.1988 begins with the subject 'Premature retirement of Government 
B servants under FR S7(b)' of the Meghalaya Fundamental and Subsidiary 
Rules, 1984. By passing a resolution, Appellant-Board has adopted the said 
Memo. Thus, it has adopted power and procedure for compulsory retirement. 
Further, the government Memo itself provides that where appointing 
authority is satisfied that a Government servant who has attained SO years 
of age or has completed 25 years' service and has ceased to take any interest 
C in his work or has become ineffective or inefficient or whose physical or mental 
condition is such as to make him incapable of further service or whose integiry 
is in doubt, such person should be considered for premature retirement under 
FR S7(b). Once that part of the Government Memo is adopted by the Board, 
it would be totally unjustifiable to hold that it has not adopted the power of 
compulsory retirement as provided in FR S7(b). (240-C-Fl 
D 
2. Further, in its meeting held on 21.3.1975 the Board decided to adopt 
A.S.E.B. (General Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1960 of the old Assam 
State Electricity Board. It means the Board has not framed its regulations 
but by passing a resolution it had adopted the regulations framed by the 
E A.S.E.B. The said Regulatiims admittedly did not contain provision for 
compulsory retirement of its employees at the age of 50 years or after 
completion of 25 years of service. Hence, the Board by passing a resolution 
dated IO.S.1989 has adopted the powers of pre-mature retirement of its 
employees. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Board has framed any 
regulation which is contrary to regulations framed under Section 79 of the 
F Act. (240-G-H; 241-A-BI 
3. The Electricity Board which is empowered to make appointment of 
its officers and employees 11nd frame statutory regulations laying down its 
service conditions; has power until the regulations are framed, to lay down 
G service conditions in exercise of its administrative power by passing resolution. 
(244-AI 
Mysore Stale Road Transport Corporation v. Gopinath Gundachar Char, 
( 19681 I SCR 767; UP. State Electricity Board. Lucknow etc. v. City Boara 
MussoorieandOrs., (19

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