Summary
Retired Assistant Engineers of the Bihar State Electricity Board sought the benefit of the State's Assured Career Progression Scheme of 2003 from 09.08.1999, the date fixed for government servants. The Board had framed its own service regulations under Section 79(C) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and the 2003 Rules themselves excluded employees of public undertakings and autonomous bodies. The scheme therefore applied to Board employees only as and when the Board adapted it, and the Board chose to apply it prospectively. The Court held that a Board free to adapt or not adapt the scheme could also choose its effective date, open to review only for mala fides. Since most appellants had retired before adaptation and none complained until 2011, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether employees of the Bihar State Electricity Board were entitled to the Assured Career Progression Scheme of 2003 from 09.08.1999, the date fixed for State Government employees.
- Whether the Board could adapt the scheme with prospective effect only.
Provisions considered
- Section 79(c), Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948The Board had framed its own service regulations under this power, so State Government service notifications did not apply to its employees unless the Board adapted them, and then only to the extent adapted. (¶¶ 9, 11)
- Scope of application, Bihar State Employees Conditions of Service (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003The Rules expressly excluded employees of public undertakings and autonomous institutions assisted by the State, so their issue created no right in favour of the Board's employees. (¶¶ 10, 11)
Held
- Once the Board framed its own service regulations, State Government service notifications were not applicable to its employees, either ipso facto or mutatis mutandis, unless the Board adapted them. Even then they applied only in the manner and to the extent adapted. The 2003 Rules also excluded employees of public undertakings and autonomous bodies. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
- The Board's notifications of 05.04.2005 and 07.10.2005 adapted the scheme prospectively and did not adopt the State's retrospective date of 09.08.1999. A body free to adapt or not adapt a scheme may also choose its effective date. Judicial review of that choice arises only if the date is shown to be mala fide or for an ulterior motive, which was not shown here. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- All appellants except one had retired before the scheme was adapted, and none raised a grievance until 2011. The scheme was later replaced by a modified scheme. The High Court rightly refused relief, and the question of dual benefit under the earlier selection grade scheme did not arise. (¶¶ 8, 14, 15)
Result
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.