Garhwal Post Bureau
NAINITAL, 27 Jun: Uttarakhand High Court has upheld the validity of the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited (UPCL) Junior Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical) Service Bye-laws, 2018, ruling that the classification made under the regulations is constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Pankaj Purohit held that the distinction drawn between employees absorbed from the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (UPSEB)/Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL) and those directly recruited by UPCL was based on a rational and legally sustainable classification.
The Bench observed that the 2018 Service Bye-laws protected the pre-existing service conditions of employees who had been absorbed into UPCL on the basis of a binding assurance, thereby justifying a separate promotional criterion for them. Such employees continue to be governed by the earlier service regulations, whereas those directly recruited by UPCL are required to complete ten years of qualifying service before becoming eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer.
The case arose from a petition filed by Rahul Giri and others, who were appointed as labourers after the formation of UPCL and were subsequently promoted as Technician Grade-II during 2011-12. They challenged Clause 20(B) of the UPCL Junior Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical) Service Bye-laws, 2018, which mandates that Technician Grade-II employees must complete ten years of service before becoming eligible for promotion as Junior Engineers.
It may be recalled that the petitioners had contended that the proviso to the same rule permitted employees who had earlier served under UPSEB or UPPCL and were subsequently absorbed into UPCL to continue under the 1972 regulations, under which only five years of service was required for promotion. They had argued that once both categories of employees had been appointed as labourers and later promoted to the post of Technician Grade-II, they formed a single homogeneous class and could not be subjected to different promotional standards.
According to the petitioners, Rule 20(B) of the 2018 Service Bye-laws arbitrarily divided similarly placed employees into two groups, with one category becoming eligible for promotion after five years of service and the other only after ten years. They maintained that such differential treatment amounted to hostile discrimination and violated Article 14 of the Constitution by treating equals unequally without any reasonable basis.
Opposing the plea, UPCL submitted that the Corporation came into existence on November 5, 2001, and employees of the erstwhile organisation were initially treated as temporary staff before being formally absorbed into UPCL with effect from January 1, 2003, through an office order. Clause 1 of the office order specifically assured that the service conditions of the absorbed employees would not be altered to their disadvantage.
UPCL argued that employees absorbed from the erstwhile organisation constituted a separate class because they had joined the Corporation on the strength of a binding assurance extended by the competent authority in 2002. Consequently, they were entitled to protection of their existing service conditions, and the petitioners, who were directly recruited by UPCL, could not claim parity with them.
The Corporation further submitted that the assurance contained in the office order was intended to remove uncertainty among employees regarding their future prospects after the creation of the new State and the restructuring of the power utilities. Since the absorbed employees had agreed to join UPCL on the promise that their existing service conditions would remain protected, they were exempted from the ten-year qualifying service requirement introduced under the 2018 Service Bye-laws.
After hearing all parties, the Division Bench observed that while Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits class legislation, it permits reasonable classification provided it bears a rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. The Court held that employees absorbed into UPCL under the office order constituted a distinct and protected class because they had been assured that their service conditions would remain unchanged.
The Bench further observed that, as an employer, UPCL is fully competent to prescribe service conditions, including the qualifying period required for promotion. Accordingly, the stipulation of ten years’ qualifying service for Technician Grade-II employees under the 2018 Service Bye-laws is within its powers.
The court also noted that the protection granted to absorbed employees prevented UPCL from applying the new promotional norms to them. It held that such employees formed a “protected class”, whereas the petitioners enjoyed no comparable protection.
In view of these findings, the High Court concluded that the classification made under Rule 20(B)(ii) of the UPCL Junior Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical) Service Bye-laws, 2018, could not be termed artificial or arbitrary, as it had a clear and reasonable nexus with the objective of safeguarding the vested service rights of employees absorbed into the Corporation. Consequently, the challenge to the validity of the provision was rejected.
