Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a policy decision of the Government of Uttar Pradesh to absorb employees of wound-up corporations into other government departments or undertakings. U.P. Chalchitra Nigam, a state-owned corporation, was wound up due to recurring losses, and its employees were to be absorbed on humanitarian grounds. The first respondent, one of the few remaining unabsorbed employees out of about 600, was directed by the State Government to be appointed as an Electrician in the U.P. State Electricity Board. The Electricity Board refused, asserting its autonomy and relying on Sections 5 and 78A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, which it claimed did not permit such government directions. The first respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Board to appoint him. The High Court, while directing the appointment, made harsh observations against the Board's officials, particularly its Chairman and Secretary, accusing them of flouting government directions and harassing a retrenched employee. The Electricity Board appealed to the Supreme Court, not contesting the appointment itself but seeking deletion of the adverse observations. During the appeal, the Board's counsel stated that the first respondent had been appointed and would continue irrespective of the outcome, making the substantive question of law academic. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 78A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, referring to Rakesh Ranjan Verma v. State of Bihar, which held that directions under Section 78A must be on questions of policy, while appointment of staff falls under Section 15. The Court noted that whether the government's direction fell within Section 78A was debatable, so the Board could not be faulted for resisting. The Court reiterated that courts should avoid stringent observations unless exceptional circumstances exist and found none in this case. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's adverse observations and disposed of the appeal without costs, leaving the respondent's appointment undisturbed.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Directions by State Government - Scope of Section 78A - Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Sections 78A and 15 - The Board is an autonomous body guided by State Government directions only on questions of policy; appointment of staff is a function under Section 15. The direction to absorb a retrenched employee as Electrician was not clearly a policy direction and its applicability was debatable, so the Board could not be condemned for resisting. Held that the High Court's strictures were unjustified because the issue was debatable and the Board had a legitimate stand (Paras 1-3). B) Judicial Discipline - Strictures and Observations - Courts should avoid harsh strictures except in exceptional circumstances - General principles of judicial restraint; no specific statutory provision - The High Court made pungent observations against the Chairman and Secretary of the Electricity Board for flouting government directions. The Supreme Court reiterated that stringent observations must be avoided unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were absent here. Held that the observations extracted were set aside and the appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court's harsh observations against officials of U.P. State Electricity Board for refusing to follow the State Government's direction to absorb a retrenched employee were justified; whether the State Government had authority under Section 78A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 to direct the Board to appoint/absorb the first respondent as Electrician.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed to the extent of setting aside the adverse observations made by the High Court against the Chairman and Secretary of U.P. State Electricity Board; no order as to costs. The appointment of the first respondent was not disturbed as the appellant decided to continue his services.
Law Points
- State Electricity Board is an autonomous body guided by State Government directions only on questions of policy under Section 78A
- appointment of staff is a function under Section 15
- scope of directions to appoint/absorb an employee is debatable
- courts must avoid stringent observations/strictures unless exceptional circumstances exist
