Rajasthan Electricity Board vs. Mohanlal & Ors.||Case Summary||A.I.R 1967 S.C. 25.||

Rajasthan Electricity Board v/s Mohanlal & Ors

A.I.R 1967 S.C. 25.

Case Summary

FACTS

Mohanlal, and the other 10 workers were all provisionally placed at the disposal of the Electricity Board of Rajasthan, Jaipur by a notification issued by the Government on 12th February 1958, purporting to exercise its powers under section 78A of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Previously all of them were permanent employees of the State Government holding posts of Foremen in the Electrical and Mechanical Department. A direction was included in the notification that new grades and service conditions were to be framed for those employees whose services were transferred to the Board under its regulation.

Employees were to be given the option of accepting these new grades and service conditions, continuing in their existing grades and service conditions, except in regard to conduct and disciplinary rules, or obtaining relief from Government service by claiming pension or gratuity as may be admissible under the Rajasthan Service Rules on the abolition of posts. The Board did not create any additional grades or service criteria until the present lawsuit arose. Mohanlal worked under the Board for a period of 2 years and was then deputed by the State Government by its order dated 27th January, 1960, to the Public Works Department of the Government. The Government issued an order to the Secretary of the Board on August 10, 1960, suggesting that Mohanlal and 10 other workers would be considered as on deputation to the Board. The Public Works Department issued an order on November 24, 1962, restoring Mohanlal to his parent department with effect from December 1, 1962, although the deputation time was later extended.He was returned to the Board from the Public Works Department on July 11, 1963, posting him as a Foreman. While working in the Public Works Department, the Board had promoted the other 10 employees to Assistant Engineers, while he was promoted to Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department. Mohanlal raised a request to the Board as well as the Government for his promotion as Assistant Engineer under the Board, which was turned down.

RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS:

1. Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948

• Section 78A: Power to Transfer EmployeesAllows the transfer of employees from the State Government to the Electricity Board and the regulation of their service conditions.

• Section 80: Service Rules and ConditionsGoverns the service rules and conditions for employees transferred to the Board.

2. Rajasthan Service Rules

• Rule 42: Pension or Gratuity on Abolition of PostsRelevant for claiming pension or gratuity when posts are abolished, as in Mohanlal's case.

• Rule 51: DeputationGoverns the terms of deputation, relevant for Mohanlal’s period in the Public Works Department.

3. Constitution of India

• Article 14: Equality Before the LawEnsures equal treatment in employment, relevant if Mohanlal’s promotion was unjustly denied.

• Article 16: Equality of Opportunity in Public EmploymentGuarantees equal opportunity in public employment, pertinent to Mohanlal’s promotion claim.

ISSUES:

1. Whether The Electricity Board be considered under the definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution?

2. Whether the Board violated the provisions of Article 14 & 16 of the Indian Constitution as raised by the Respondents?

3. Whether Respondent Mohanlal was an employee of the Electricity Board?

   
   

JUDGEMENT:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the Rajasthan Electricity Board qualifies as a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that, as a statutory body performing public functions and empowered by the State through legislation, the Board is subject to the constitutional provisions governing state actions. This designation brought the Board’s actions under the purview of Articles 14 and 16, ensuring that its actions are subject to the principles of equality and non-discrimination in public employment. The Court further affirmed that individuals employed by or interacting with statutory authorities like the Rajasthan Electricity Board have the right to challenge such entities under writ jurisdiction if their fundamental rights are violated. This landmark decision significantly broadened the scope of writ jurisdiction and reinforced the enforceability of fundamental rights against statutory bodies, setting an important precedent for holding such bodies accountable under constitutional law.