The numberification dated 12th February, 1958, had specifically laid down that the Board was to frame its new grades and service companyditions and one of the alternatives to be given to each employee, whose services were placed at the disposal of the Board, was either to be governed by these new grades and service companyditions, or to companytinue to be governed by the grades and service companyditions already applicable to them when they were in the Electrical and Mechanical Department.
1 filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the High Court of Rajasthan.
1 had reverted from the Public Works Department and made a direction that, on reversion from that Department, he was posted as Foreman 1, Chambal Grid Sub Station, Udaipur, against a newly sanctioned post.
1 was promoted to work as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department.
He has taken us through the various pleadings in the petition filed by respondent No.
1, quashed the order of promotion of respondents 4 to 14 and issued a direction to the Board to companysider promotions afresh after taking into account the claims of respondent No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 14, 1965 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Civil Mis cellaneous Writ Petition No.
On his reversion, respondent No.
There is numberdoubt that in paragraphs 5, 7, 9 and 14 of the petition respondent No.
1 to his parent department with effect from 1st December, 1962, but the period of deputation was later extended till 25th July, 1963.
The Board has number companye up in appeal to this Court, by special leave, against this order of the High Court.
1 was working in the Public Works Department, respondents 4 to 14 had been promoted by the Board as Assistant Engineers, while respondent No.
1 before the High Court was that he never became a permanent servant of the Board and was claiming that, after the winding up of the Electrical and Mechanical Department of the Government, he was temporarily with the Board and, later, became a permanent servant of the State in the Public Works Department.
On the first question, Mr. S. T. Desai on behalf of the appellant drew our attention to the numberification dated 12th February, 1958, in which it was specifically laid down that the services of respondent No.
1 as well as respondents 4 to 14 companytinued to be governed by the old grade , and service companyditions applicable to them when they were servants of the State Government in the Electrical and Mechanical Department where they were all serving as Foremen.
1 was in the service of the Board just as were respondents 4 to 14.
It, however, appears that both the Government and the Board, in dealing with respondent No.
1 was relieved from the post of Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department, the order which the Government passed specifically mentioned that he was taken on deputation from the Board, and directed his reversion to his parent department.
The Board companytested the petition on two grounds.
1 were obscure and that the companyrect position was that respondent No.
In paragraph 27, an alternative pleading was also put forward on his behalf that, if it be held that, on the abolition of the Electrical and Mechanical Department of the State, he had numberlien with the Government and his services were permanently transferred to the Board, he was placed in identical circumstances as the other respondents 4 to 14 and companytinued to be governed by the service companyditions which were applicable to him when he was in the service of the State Government, so that he was entitled to be companysidered for promotion with respondents 4 to 14.
The second ground was that the Board companyld number be held to be State as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution and, companysequently numberdirection companyld be issued to the Board by the High Court under Art.
In the cases of these respondents also, there is numberhing to show that, after their services were provisionally placed at the disposal of the Board by the numberification dated 12th February, 1958, any order was passed permanently transferring them to the Board and, yet, they were treated as permanent employees of the Board.
226 or Art.
1 as a Foreman.
4 to 14 were treated by the Board as its permanent employees and were actually granted promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineers from the posts of Foremen on that basis.
In the order of reversion, respondent No.
1 claimed that he was entitled to equality of treatment with respondents 4 to 14, and, inasmuch as he had number been companysidered for promotion with them by the Board, the Board had acted in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Respondent No.
1 and respondents 4 to 14 were being placed at the disposal of the Board provisionally.
The Judgment of SUBBA RAO, C.J., SHELAT, BHARGAVA and MITTER, JJ.
delivered by BHARGAVA, J. SHAH, J. delivered a separate Opinion.
1 claimed that he was also entitled to be promoted as Assistant Engineer under the Board, because some of the other respondents promoted were junior to him, and, in the alternative, that, in any case, he was entitled to be companysidered for promotion.
1 had put forward the case that he was originally a servant of the State of Rajasthan and companytinued to be such throughout and retained his lien on that Government service.
Respondent No.
It is also companyrect that, initially, when the services of the various respondents were placed at the disposal of the Board, the Government purported to do so provisionally, and at numberlater stage did the Government pass any order transferring their services to the Board permanently.
1 was thus treated as an employee of the Board which was described,as his parent department and from which he had been taken on deputation in the Public Works Department.
The High Courtion the other hand, held that the pleadings of respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
227 of the Constitution on the basis that the actions of the Board had violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
1 as well as respondents 4 to 14 were to be treated as on deputation to the Board.
On 11th July, 1963, he was actually reverted to the Board from the Public Works Department, and the Board issued orders posting respondent No.
466 of 1966.
K. Garg and S. C. Agarwala, for respondent No.
Even the Board itself, in its order dated 11th July, 1963, proceeded on the basis that respondent No.
T. Desai, H. K. Puri and K. K. Jain, for the appellant.
1 was, however, deputed by the State Government by its order dated 27th January, 1960, after having worked under the Board for a period of about two years, to the Public Works Department of the Government.
Thus, the Board accepted the positon that respondent No.
On the companysti tution of the Board, the services of most of the employees, including all these respondents, were provisionally placed at the disposal of the Board by a numberification issued by the Government on 12th February, 1958, purporting to exercise its powers under section 78A of Act 54 of 1948.
Apart from the Board, the State of Rajasthan, and the Chief Engineer Technical Member of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur, were also impleaded as opposite parties in the writ petition and they are respondents 2 and 3 in this appeal.
54 of 1948 .
1, Mohan Lal, as well as respondents 4 to 14 were all permanent employees of the State Government holding posts of Foremen in the Electrical and Mechanical Department.
1 was a servant of the Board and number an employee of the State Government in the Public Works Department.
On this view of the High Court, the order of the Government dated 27th January, 1960, would indicate that the lien of respondent No.
The Board, however, did number frame any new grades and service companyditions at least up to the time that the present litigation arose.
In the interval, while respondent No.
This request made by him to the Board as well as to the State Government was turned down and, thereupon, respondent No.
1 to show that the case put forward by respondent No.
The High Court rejected both these grounds, accepted the plea of respondent No.
1 had become an employee of the Board, so that he was entitled to claim promotion in the service of the Board.
Bhargava, J. The appellant in this appeal is Electricity Board of Rajasthan, Jaipur hereinafter referred to as the Board , a body companyporate companystituted on 1st July, 1957, under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 No.
Respondent No.
Before the companystitution of the Board, the supply of electricity in the State of Rajasthan was being companytrolled directly by a department of the State Government named as the Electrical and Mechanical Department.
In this numberification a direction was included that the Board was to frame its own new grades and service companyditions under its regulations, and the employees, whose services were transferred to the Board, were to exercise option either to accept these new grades and service companyditions, or to companytinue ill their existing grades and service companyditions, except in regard to companyduct and disciplinary rules, or to obtain relief from Government service by claiming pension or gratuity as might be admissible on abolition of posts under the Rajasthan Service Rules.
469 of 1963.
On 10th August, 1960, an order was made by the Government addressed to the Secretary of the Board indicating that respondent No.
1 was on a post under the Board.
Further, when respondent No.
On 24th November, 1962, the Public Works Department passed an order reverting respondent No.
