Protection Of Pre-Existing Service Conditions Justifies Separate Promotion Criteria For Absorbed Employees: Uttarakhand HC

Background Facts

The petitioners were appointed as Labour after the creation of Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited (UPCL). They were later promoted to the post of Technician Grade-II in the years 2011-2012. They challenged Clause 20(B) of the UPCL Junior Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical) Service Bye-Laws, 2018 before the High Court. This provision required Technician Grade-II employees to complete ten years of qualifying service before becoming eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer. However, a proviso to the same rule allowed employees who were earlier serving in the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (UPSEB) or Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL) and were later absorbed in UPCL to be governed by the Regulations of 1972. The 1972 Regulations were more lenient where only five years of service was required for promotion.

Aggrieved, the petitioners challenged the validity of Clause 20 (B) of the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. Junior Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical) Service Bye-laws, 2018 by filing a writ petition. The petitioners sought consideration of their case for promotion with similarly situated employees of U.P. State Electricity Board/U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. who have been absorbed in Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.

It was submitted by the petitioners that they as well as the other group of persons who have to serve for five years for promotion, were appointed as Labour and upon their promotion to the post of Technician Grade-II, they became members of one homogenous class, therefore they cannot be treated differently.

It was submitted that the proviso to Rule 20(B) of the Service Bye-Laws, 2018 arbitrarily divided this class into two groups. One group is required to serve ten years for promotion, while the other needed only five years. It was further argued that such discrimination violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it treated equals unequally without any reasonable basis.

On the other hand, it was argued by the UPCL that the Corporation came into existence on 05.11.2001 and employees of UPPCL were initially deemed to be on deputation and later absorbed in UPCL w.e.f. 01.01.2003 through an office memo. It was submitted that Clause 1 of the office memo provided that the service conditions of absorbed employees shall not be varied to their disadvantage.

Thus it was contended that persons who were appointed in UPPCL and who later became employee of UPCL by absorption constitute a separate class in view of the assurance given to them by the Competent Authority in the year 2002 and petitioners cannot claim parity with such employees who are protected by the office memo.

It was further argued that Clause 1 of office memo is in the nature of a promise to employees who were absorbed in the service of UPCL. The promise was given to reassure employees of UPPCL that no prejudice would be caused to their conditions of service upon absorption in UPCL. Initially, employees of UPPCL were not ready for absorption of their service in UPCL due to uncertainty about their career prospects. Therefore, a promise was made to persons who became employees of UPCL by absorption. Hence, such employees were exempted from the requirement of ten years qualifying service for promotion, introduced in the Service Bye-Laws framed in 2018.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was noted by the Division Bench that Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification, provided it has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

It was observed that the employees absorbed from UPPCL formed a distinct class by virtue of the office memo, which assured them that their service conditions would remain unchanged. It was further observed that UPCL, as an employer, was competent to determine service conditions including qualifying service for promotion, and the Service Bye-Laws of 2018 prescribed ten years of service for Technician Grade-II employees.

It was further noted that the protection extended to the absorbed employees prevented UPCL from applying the new rule to them. It was held that since employees covered by office memo belong to “Protected Class”, while there was no such protection offered to petitioners, therefore the contention that petitioners are identically placed to such persons was unreasonable.

Therefore, it was held that the classification made by proviso to Rule 20(B)(two) of the Service Bye-Laws 2018 cannot be termed as artificial classification as it has reasonable nexus with the objective of protecting the pre-existing rights of absorbed employees.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Rahul Giri and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and Another

Case No. : Writ Petition (S/B) No.357 of 2021

Counsel for the Petitioners : A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Raveendra Singh Bisht

Counsel for the Respondents : K.N. Joshi, learned D.A.G., Dharmendra Barthwal