U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, LUCKNOW versus P.L. KELKAR, ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 335 · Decided: 07-05-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.',A 
" • 
.. 
-
-. 
~ 
~ y 
--~ 
j. "r 
U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, LUCKNOW 
A 
v. 
P .L. KELKAR, ETC. ETC. 
MAY 7, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND V. KHALID, JJ.] 
B 
U. P. · Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Integration and 
Seniority) Regulations, 1976-Regulation 7(iv)(b)-Directly recruited 
Engineers--Seniority of-Advance increments allowed at the time of 
recruitment-Advantage of-Whether to be taken into account while 
determining the seniority. 
c 
The first respondent in the Appeal, a Superintending Engineer, 
was directly recruited by the U.P. Electricity Board as an Assistant 
Engineer on October 7, 1964. He was given nine advance increments by 
reason of his varied experience in different governmental and other 
organisations, as against two advance increments given to others. The D 
petitioners in the connected special leave petition also working as 
Superintending Engineers were Assistant Engineers in the Irrigatien 
and Power Department and were placed on deputation with the Electri-
city Board by the State Government from the year 1960 onwards, and 
were confirmed as Assistant Engineers with effect ·from April 1, 1975. 
There was no seniority list of Assistant Engineers in the Board nor were 
E 
there any rules of seniority at the time when the first respondent joined 
service. 
The Electricity Board, in exercise of the power conferred under 
section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 framed the U.P. 
Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Integration and Seniority) F 
Regulations 1976. ~egulation 7(iv)(b) provided that "while determining 
the seniority under clauses (ii) and (Iii), Engineers directly recruited by 
the Board before the commencement of these regulations shall be given 
advantage of as many years of service as was the number of advance 
increments which were allowed to them at the time of recruitment by 
the Board." It also provided that "in doing so, no officer shall, how-
G 
ever, be given advantage beyond the date of his initial regular appoint· 
ment in the Government department or the other organisations." 
The Board amended the regulation to remove certain anomalies 
and to give effect to the intention of the Board in framing the rule of 
seniority. The amended regulation substituted the words "U.P. H 
335 
--- - ------
-
-
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987) 3.S.C.R. 
A 
Government or Central Government Department in consideration of 
the service for which advance increments were so allowed." 
The Board, in accordance with the amended regulation, pub-
lished the integrated seniority list in which the name of the first respon-
dent figured at SI. No. 12 below other officers working as Superintend-
B ing Engineers including the petitioners in the connected special leave 
petition. 
~· 
The first respondent made a representation to the U.P. Services 
Tribunal challenging the amended regulation which was allowed. The 
Tribunal held that in terms of Regulation 7(iv)(b) of the Regulations, 
C the first respondent having been granted seven advance increments was 
entitled to the benefit of as many years of service as the number of 
advance increments given to him at the time of his recruitment. 
ID 
A batch of writ petitions seeking to quash the order of the Tribunal 
was filed in the High Court, which upheld the order of the Tribunal. 
• 
--f 
The Appeal by special leave by the Electricity Bllard, the con-
)' 
nected Special Leave Petition of the aggrieved petitioners and the Writ 
Petition challenged the construction and application of Regulation 
7(iv)(b). 
E 
Dismissing the Appeal, the Special Leave Petition and the Writ 
Petition, the Court 
HELD: (1) Regulation 7(iv)(b) of the U.P. State Electricity Board of 
Service of Engineers (lntPgration and Seniority) Regulations, 1976 com-
prises of two parts. The first part referred to the advantage of advance 
F increments. This advantage is based on special qualification and past 
experience and its consequent effect on seniority. The Regulation before 
its amendment, mentioned 'Government departments or other organi· 
sations' but after its amendment it was changed to 'in the U.P. or 
Central Government Department.' This change showed a deliberate 
attempt to deny its benefit to employees who came from service not ~ 
... 
G comprised in either U.P. or Central Government Departments. It would 
'"! 
be neither just nor fair to give a limited meaning to the second part of the 
amended regulation and thereby to deny its benefit to those

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