Absorbed Employees Of UPCL Constitute Distinct Class From Directly Appointed Employees: Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Validity Of Clause 20(B) Of Junior Engineer Service Bye-laws

The High Court was considering a Petition whereby the petitioners sought a direction to declare Clause 20 (B) of the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. Junior Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical) Service Bye-laws, 2018 (Annexure No.5) as null and void, being ultra vires to the Constitution. It was alleged that the same provided discrimination between the petitioners and other similarly situated Technician Grade-II (TG-II) of the erstwhile UPSEB/UPPCL whose services are protected.

The Bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit and Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari held, “Now coming back to the facts of the present case. Persons who were appointed in UPPCL and became employee of the UPCL by absorption of service constitute a distinct class of persons by virtue of office memo dated 18.12.2002 as they were promised that their service conditions prevailing as on date of their absorption will remain unchanged.”

Senior Advocate A.S. Rawat represented the Petitioner, while Deputy Attorney General K.N. Joshi represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioners were appointed as Labour after the creation of Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. (UPCL), and they were thereafter promoted as Technician Grade-II in the years 2011-2012. The Petitioners were challenging Rule 20(B) of UPCL Junior Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical) Service Bye-Laws, 2018. According to the petitioners, the next promotional post available to Technician Grade-I and Technician Grade-II was that of Junior Engineer.

Clause 20(B)(two) of Service Bye-Laws, 2018 provides that Technician Grade-I/Technician Grade-II shall be eligible to participate in departmental examination for promotion upon completing qualifying service of ten years. However proviso to Rule 20(B) provides that employees who were absorbed in service of UPCL and were earlier serving in Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (UPSEB) or Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. (UPPCL), Clause 20(B) would be applicable to them only to the extent permissible under the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Subordinate Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Service Regulations, 1972 (Regulations of 1972).

Arguments

It was the case of the petitioners that, as per the Regulations of 1972, persons serving as Technician Grade-II who possessed a High School qualification were eligible for promotion after putting in only five years of service. It was contended that on account of the proviso to Rule 20(B) of the Service Bye-Laws, 2018, the members of one homogeneous class were segregated into two groups, for one group of persons, qualifying service needed for promotion was five years, while for the other group, the qualifying service needed for promotion was ten years.

Reasoning

Referring to Article 14 of the Constitution, which provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before law or equal protection of law within the territory of India, the Bench explained that Article 14 forbids class legislation, but it does not forbid reasonable classification. “The classification however must not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive, but must be based on some real and substantial bearing, just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the classification. Article 14 of the Constitution of India applies where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. But where equals and unequals are treated differently, Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not apply”, it added.

The Bench further explained, “Classification to be reasonable must fulfil the following conditions:

I. The classification must be founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group.

II. The differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Rule/Bye-law. The differentia which is basis of the classification and the objective of the classification are two distinct things. What is necessary that there must be nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the classification. It is only when there is no reasonable basis for a classification, then the statute making such classification may be declared discriminatory.”

The Bench explained that persons who were appointed in UPPCL and became employees of the UPCL by absorption of service constituted a distinct class of persons by virtue of the office memo dated December 18, 2002 as they were promised that their service conditions prevailing as on the date of their absorption would remain unchanged. The Bench further noticed that UPCL as an employer could determine service conditions of its employees, including the qualifying service needed for promotion to the next higher post.

The Bench noted that UPCL determined service conditions of its employees by framing Service Bye-Laws in 2018 and provided that for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer, Technician Grade-II will have to complete qualifying service of ten years. As per the Bench, the promise extended to employees of UPPCL, who were appointed by absorption in UPCL however prevented UPCL to apply the new condition regarding qualifying service to employees who were protected by office memo dated December 18, 2002.

Thus, holding that the classification made by proviso to Rule 20(B)(two) of the Service Bye-Laws 2018 couldnot be termed as an artificial classification, the Bench dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Rahul Giri v. State of Uttarakhand (Neutral Citation: Writ Petition (S/B) No.357 of 2021)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate A.S. Rawat, Advocate Raveendra Singh Bisht

Respondent: Deputy Attorney General K.N. Joshi, Advocate Dharmendra Barthwal

Click here to read/download Order