{"id":102955,"date":"2003-10-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-10-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003"},"modified":"2016-02-20T02:01:40","modified_gmt":"2016-02-19T20:31:40","slug":"bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003","title":{"rendered":"Bhaarathiya Electricity … vs The Management on 23 October, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Bhaarathiya Electricity … vs The Management on 23 October, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 23\/10\/2003  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA          \nAND  \nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA            \n\nWRIT PETITION NO.10727 OF 2003     \nAND W.P.NOS. 10728, 10730    \n11919 to 11921, 11565 to 11567,11899, \n11900, 11902, 11935 to 11937, 12367 to 12369, \n12370 to 12372, 12007, 12008, 12010, 12349, 12351, \n12353, 12519, 12520, and 12522 OF 2003   \n\nAND  \n\nW.P.M.P.NOS.13553, 13554, 13556, 14943 to 14945,    \n14542 to 14544, 14926, 14927, 14929, 14962 to 14967, \n15537 to 15542, 15543 to 15548, 15058, 15059, \n15061, 15513, 15514, 15516, 15517, 15690 to 15693, \n15696 and 15697  OF 2003  \n\n\nW.P.NO.10727 OF 2003:   \n\nBhaarathiya Electricity Employees Federation\n(Regn.No.990\/SLM)  \naffiliated to Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS),\nrepresented by General Secretary,\nR.Murali Krishnan                               ..  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Management,  \nTamil Nadu Electricity Board,\nrepresented by its Secretary,\nN.P.K.R.R.Maaligai, \nElectricity Avenue,\nAnna Salai, Chennai-2.\n\n2. The Government of Tail Nadu,\nrepresented by its Development Commisisioner &  \nSecretary,\nFinance (Pensions) Department, \nFort St.George,\nChennai-9.                              ..  Respondents\n\n\n\nFor Petitioner : Mr.K.Chandru, SC\n                  for Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan\n                  Mr.S.Doraisamy\n                  Ms.R.Vaigai\n                  Mr.R.Viduthalai\n                  Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, SC\n                  M\/s.Row & Reddy\n                  Mr.R.Thiagarajan, SC\n\nFor Respondents : Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy     \n                   Addl.Advocate General\n                   assisted by Mr.S.T.S.Murthy,SplGP\n\n:COMMON ORDER      \n\nF.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.   \n<\/pre>\n
                The Challenge in these Writ Petitions is to the Proceedings of
\nthe Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in (Per) B.P.(Ch.) Nos.64, 65 and  66  (  SB)
\ndated 31-3-2003.\n<\/p>\n
                2.   In  (Per) B.P.Ch.No.64, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
\nby virtue of the provisions of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Pension  Rules  1978,  which
\naccording to it, was applicable to the employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity
\nBoard,  it  became  necessary  to  adopt  the  orders  relating  to Government
\nPensioners to the Pensioners of the Tamil  Nadu  Electricity  Board,  that  by
\nG.O.No.71  dated  19-3-2003 of the State Government, the qualifying service to
\nearn full pension having been enhanced from 30 years to  33  years,  the  same
\nenhancement  is  also  made  applicable  to  the  employees of the Board after
\nretirement to become eligible to earn full pension.  For the  same  reasoning,
\nthe  Board  also  directed  that  pension  would  be determined on the average
\nemoluments drawn during the last 10  months  service  alone.    Following  the
\ndirection  in G.O.No.71 dated 19-3-2003, the above said Board proceedings were
\nalso made applicable from 1-4-2003.\n<\/p>\n
                3.  Similarly, in  (Per)  B.P.Ch.No.65,  dated  31-3-2003  the
\nTamil Nadu Electricity Board enhanced the discount rate of commutation from 4%
\nto 8% inconsonance  with  the  G.O.  No.73 dated 19-3-2003.  Likewise in (Per)
\nB.P.No.66 dated 31-3-2003, the maximum limit for commutation of the portion of
\nthe pension by the pensioner was  also  restricted  to  33.1\/3%  by  following
\nG.O.No.74 dated 19-3-2003.\n<\/p>\n
                4.   In fact, in (Per)B.P.Ch.No.67, dated 31-3-2003, the Tamil
\nNadu Electricity Board, by following G.O.No.75 dated 19-3-2003, directed  that
\npayment of Gratuity at the time of retirement would be made 50% by way of cash
\nand  50%  by  way of Small Savings Certificate or National Savings Certificate
\n(Plan VIII-Issues) issued on or after 1-4-2003.  However, it is stated that as
\nthe said G.O.75 itself came to be subsequently withdrawn in  G.O.No.218  dated
\n26-7-2003, the  said (Per) B.  P.Ch.No.67 dated 31-3-2003 was not brought into
\neffect.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  At the outset, it will have to be stated  that  since  all
\nthe  impugned  Proceedings  came  to  be  issued  based  on  the corresponding
\nGovernment Orders, testing the validity of  the  impugned  proceedings  depend
\nupon  the  corresponding  G.Os.,  based  on  which  the Proceedings came to be
\nissued.  It is also relevant  to  mention  that  the  said  Government  Orders
\nthemselves  were under Challenge in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.11228
\nof 2003 etc., in which, we have rendered our Judgment dated 23-4-2003 wherein,
\nwhile upholding G.O.No.71 and 74 dated 19-3-2 003, we have set aside G.O.No.73
\ndated 19-3-2003.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  On behalf of the petitioners,  submissions  were  made  by
\nMr.R.   Thiagarajan,  Senior  counsel,  Mr.K.Chandru,Senior counsel, Mr.N.G.R.
\nPrasad, Miss.R.Vaigai and R.Viduthalai.  The respondent Board was  represented
\nby the learned Addl.Advocate General.\n<\/p>\n
                7.   Mr.N.G.R.Prasad,  learned  counsel  in  his  submissions,
\ncontended that the Electricity Board being a statutory body, it  has  got  its
\nown independent existence, therefore, what applies to the government employees
\ndoes  not  automatically  apply  to  the employees of the Board and therefore,
\nmerely by adopting the Government Orders, the Board  cannot  contend  that  it
\nneed  not follow the provisions contained under the Industrial Disputes Act in
\nparticular Section 9(A) of  the  Act.    According  to  the  learned  counsel,
\nRegulation   9  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Electricity  Board  Liberalised  Pension
\nRegulations 1960 hereinafter called ‘the Pension Regulations’, which,  is  the
\nsaving  provision, which provides that those regulations are not in derogation
\nof  the  provisions  of  the  civil  service  regulations  applicable  to  the
\nGovernment  employees  will  not  take  away the effect of Section 9(A) of the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act.   According  to  the  learned  counsel,  the  Pension
\nRegulations  themselves  will not apply to the Electricity Board employees who
\nwere governed by the existing contract prevailing between the  Board  and  its
\nemployees.  The learned Senior counsel would further contend that when Section
\n9(A)  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act is applicable to the employees of the
\nBoard, without giving an appropriate notice  under  the  said  provision,  the
\nimpugned Proceedings  can  not be given effect to.  It was next contended that
\nin any event, the Chairman was not  competent  to  issue  the  Proceedings  on
\nbehalf of  the Board.  Further, according to the learned counsel as the issues
\nrelate to service matters, it cannot be held that the Board is bound to follow
\nthe directives of the State Government in exercise of the powers under Section
\n78(A) of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 which only talks of policy matters.
\nOne other contention of the learned counsel was that by virtue  of  Regulation
\n17(g)  as  well  as,  Explanation V (gg)(i) to Regulation 17 of the Tamil Nadu
\nElectricity  Board  Service  Regulations,  hereinafter  called  ‘the   Service
\nRegulations’,  when  provisions have been made as to how retirement is to take
\neffect and an employee would qualify for pension after completion of 20  years
\nof  service, even the Pension Regulations will have no effect inasmuch as, the
\nService Regulations have been framed by virtue of the powers vested  with  the
\nBoard under  79(  c)  of  the Electricity Supply Act 1948.  The learned Senior
\ncounsel relied upon  an  unreported  judgment  of  the  learned  Single  Judge
\nrendered in W.P.No.11398 dated 22-12-1994 which was also confirmed in W.A.No.1
\n53  of  1995,  dated  21-7-1997,  as  well  as, the Division Bench Judgment in
\nW.A.No.138 of 1960 dated 15-12-1960.   Reliance  was  also  placed  upon  1968
\nKerala 76  (A.M.MANI  versus  KERALA  STATE  ELECTRICITY  BOARD  REP.   BY ITS
\nSECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM & OTHERS).\n<\/p>\n
                8.  Mr.K.Chandru, learned Senior  Counsel  appearing  for  the
\npetitioners  in  W.P.No.11919  to  11921,  fairly stated that by virtue of the
\nsettlement between the  Board  and  its  employees  and  the  clauses  in  the
\nsettlement  specifically  provide that the revised pension scheme of the Tamil
\nNadu Government and any amendments thereon from time to time  would  apply  to
\nthe pensioners of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, there is no scope to still
\ncontend  that  Section  9(A)  should  be  complied  with  by  the Board before
\nintroducing any change in relation to pensionary benefits.  According  to  the
\nlearned  Senior  counsel,  by  virtue  of  Proviso  (A)  of  Section  9 of the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board need not  issue  any
\nnotice  before  introducing  any  change  in  the pensionary benefits when the
\nchanges are brought out by the State Government.  The learned senior  counsel,
\nhowever,  contended  that  the  Proceedings  are liable to be set aside on the
\nground that there was non application of mind  and  inasmuch  as  the  Board’s
\naudited  Budget  provisions  make it clear that funds have been duly allocated
\nfor Gratuity and Pension  based  on  the  pensionary  provisions  and  in  the
\ncircumstances,  the  mechanical  adoption  of  the  Government  Orders without
\nreference  to  the  Board’s  financial  position  would  render  the  impugned
\nProceedings invalid.\n<\/p>\n
                9.  Ms.R.Vaigai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
\nin  W.P.Nos.11899  to  11902,  in  her  submissions, relied upon the judgments
\nreported in 1983(1) SCC 305 (D.S.NAKARA AND OTHERS  versus  UNION  OF  INDIA),
\n1997  (6)  SCC  7  (K.L.RATHEE  versus  UNION  OF  INDIA),  1996(2)  LLJ 1 127
\n(SECRETARY, (ESTT.) RAILWAY BOARD versus D.FRANCIS PAUL, ETC.), 1  984(3)  SCC
\n281  (EX.CAPT.K,C.ARORA  &  ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS), 1978(2) SCC 50
\n(MADAN MOHAN PATHAK versus UNION OF  INDIA),  1989(3  )  SCC  132  (MARATHWADA
\nUNIVERSITY  versus  SESHRAO  BALWANT  RAO  CHAVAN)  and 1955 SC 188 (GANAPATHI
\nSINGHJI versus STATE OF AJMER) and contended that in the light  of  the  broad
\nprinciples set out in the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
\n‘D.S.Nakara’,reported  in 1 983(1) SCC 305 (cited supra), pensioners will have
\nto be treated as a class and it will have to be held that they  have  acquired
\ntheir rights by virtue of long service rendered with the Board and that by the
\nimpugned  Proceedings  as  between  a  Class of Pensioners, two different yard
\nsticks cannot be applied.  According to the learned counsel, though it may  be
\nopen  for  the  Board  to  seek  for  introduction  of such new conditions and
\napplying them to those who enter into service after 1 -4-2003, the same cannot
\nbe imposed on the existing employees who entered into service  prior  to  that
\ndate.   The  learned  counsel further contended that when the Board itself was
\nnot empowered to delegate its powers to the  Chairman,  the  Chairman  had  no
\njurisdiction  to  issue the impugned Proceedings by merely relying upon the so
\ncalled delegation of powers  in  B.P.Ch.Nos.1084  dated  28-6-1979.    It  was
\nfurther  contended that by virtue of Section 6(A) and 17(A)(A) of the Employes
\nProvident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, read with Section  13(B)  in
\nrespect of the exempted schemes, without obtaining the approval of the Central
\nGovernment, no change can be effected.\n<\/p>\n
                10.    Mr.R.Viduthalai,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the
\npetitioners in W.P.Nos.11935 to 11937 of 2003, etc., contended that apart from
\ntotal non application of mind, while adopting the Government Orders, there was
\nno scope for the Board to merely rely upon the Government Order while making a
\nchange in the pension provision without necessary amendment to Rule 9  of  the
\nPension Regulations.     According  to  the  learned  counsel,  the  financial
\nunsustainability which weighed with the State Government  will  not  apply  in
\nview of  the  Board’s  financial position.  In such circumstances, there being
\nviolation of Article 14 of the  Constitution,  the  impugned  Proceedings  are
\nliable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
                11.   Mr.R.Thiagarajan,  learned  Senior counsel appearing for
\nthe petitioners in W.P.No.12519 to 12520 of 2003, etc., by  relying  upon  AIR
\n1986 SC 515 (INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS (BOMBAY) PRIVATE LTD.  AND OTHERS ETC.,
\nETC.  versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS) and by referring to additional affidavit
\nfiled on behalf of the petitioners, pointed out that as many as 369 members of
\nthat  petitioner association alone completed 30 years of service on 31-3-2003,
\nand therefore, the impugned proceedings must be held to be suffering from  the
\ntest  laid  down  in the above said Judgment in order to be interfered with in
\nthat Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n
                12.  As against the above submissions made on  behalf  of  the
\npetitioners,  the  learned Additional Advocate General contended that by (Per)
\nB.P.Ms.(FB)No.5 dated 26-6-1986 of the employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity
\nBoard have now been brought under the Pension Scheme  governed  by  the  Tamil
\nNadu  Electricity  Board  Employees  Pension Rules, that by Permanent B.P.(FB)
\nNo.7 dated 17-2-1995, the Saving Clause in Clause 9 of the Pension Regulations
\nhave also been suitably amended  providing  that  instead  of  Civil  Services
\nRegulations, the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 would be applicable, therefore,
\nthe  Tamil  Nadu  Electricity Board Liberalised Pension Regulations 1960 is in
\naddition to the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and therefore, by virtue of the
\nexisting regulations  in  regard  to  Pension  Provisions  applicable  to  the
\nemployees  of  the  Board, when the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules are straight away
\napplicable irrespective of the impugned B.Ps., the employees of the Board  are
\nbound  by whatever change or amendment brought to the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules
\nand therefore, the implementation of G.O.No.71 , 73 and 74 dated 19-3-2003  to
\nthe  employees of the Electricity Board governed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity
\nLiberalised Pension Regulations cannot be called in question.  As regards  the
\ncontention  based  on Section 9(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the learned
\nAddl.  Advocate General  contended  that  by  virtue  of  the  Clause  in  the
\nsettlement  dated  8-7-1998  to  which  all  the existing unions including the
\npetitioner unions are signatory to the said settlement, there is no  scope  to
\ninvoke Section 9(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act.  He also contended that in
\nany  event  since  the  changes  which  were sought to be introduced under the
\nimpugned Proceedings do not fall under any of the items in the Schedule IV  of
\nthe Industrial Disputes Act, Section 9(A) will have no application.\n<\/p>\n
                13.   As  regards  the  contention  based on lack of necessary
\ndelegation available to the Chairman  of  the  Board  to  issue  the  impugned
\nProceedings,  according  to  the  learned  Addl.Advocate General, the impugned
\nProceedings were only communicated for implementation of  the  relevant  G.Os.
\nin  G.O.No.71,  73  and 74 which have brought out the consequential changes in
\nthe Pension Regulations and  therefore,  communication  of  the  same  by  the
\nChairman cannot  be  faulted.  According to the learned Addl.Advocate General,
\neven in the year 1996 when maximum eligibility of 33 years  for  earning  full
\npension  was  brought  down  to  30  years, on that occasion also, it was only
\ncommunicated by the  Chairman.    By  referring  to  para  7  of  the  counter
\naffidavit, the  learned  Addl.    Advocate  General  contended  that  the loss
\nincurred by the Board during 2001-2 002 and 2002-2003 being of  the  order  of
\nRs.2201.78  and  1554.74 Crores respectively, it cannot be held that there was
\nnon application of mind and that it was arbitrary or unreasonable to implement
\nthe above said G.Os.  The learned Addl.Advocate General  relied  upon  1993(4)
\nSCC 62 (STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS versus RATAN BEHARI DEY AND OTHERS) in
\nsupport  of  his  contention  that  the  specification  of  cut of date, viz.,
\n1-4-2003 was reasonably fixed by the State Government and therefore,  on  that
\nground  it  cannot  be  held  that  the  same cannot be made applicable to the
\nexisting employees  who  are  to  retire  after  1-4-200  3.     The   learned
\nAddl.Advocate  General  further  contended  that by applying the dictum of the
\nHon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Nagaraj’s case’ reported in AIR  1985  SCC  551,  it
\nwill  have  to  be  held  that the changes brought out were all reasonable and
\ncannot be held to be arbitrary exercise of power or irrational in order to  be
\ninterfered with.\n<\/p>\n
                14.   Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for the
\nrespective parties in this batch  of  Writ  Petitions,  which  relate  to  the
\nemployees  of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the question for consideration
\nis whether the import of the changes brought out by the  State  Government  by
\nG.O.Nos.71,  73 and 74 can be made applicable by virtue of Regulation 9 of the
\nTamil Nadu Electricity Board Liberalised Pension Regulations, without anything
\nmore.  If our answer to that question is in  the  affirmative,  then  all  the
\nother contentions of the petitioners would automatically fall to the ground.\n<\/p>\n
                15.   However, before adverting to the above said question, we
\nwant to steer clear of  the  very  validity  of  the  concerned  G.Os.    with
\nreference  to  which  we  have made a detailed discussion in our order dated 2
\n3-10-2003 in the batch of the Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.11228 of 2003 ,  etc.,
\nwherein, the said  G.Os.    came to be challenged.  In the said order, we have
\nreached a conclusion that G.O.Nos.  71 and 74 dated 19-3 -2003 are  valid  and
\naccordingly, we  have  upheld  the  said  G.Os.    As  far  as G.O.No.73 dated
\n19-3-2003, we have held that the said G.O.  was arbitrary and  irrational  and
\ntherefore, the  same  was  liable  to  be set aside.  Inasmuch as, we have set
\naside G.O.No.73 dated 19-3-2003,  the  corresponding  (Per)B.P.Ch.No.65  dated
\n31-3-2003 cannot  also  stand.   Therefore, irrespective of the question as to
\nthe validity of  the  impugned  B.P.Ch.No.65  dated  31-3-2003,  as  the  very
\nG.O.No.73 dated 19-3-2003 which was sought to be implemented under the present
\nB.P.No.65  itself has been set aside, we are of the considered view that there
\nis no point in unnecessarily deliberating on the details  of  the  above  said
\nimpugned (Per)B.P.No.65,  and we hold that the said (Per)B.P.Ch.  No.65, dated
\n31-3-2003 can not stand the scrutiny of this Court for the simple reason  that
\nthe  very  basis  of  the  issuance  of  the  said B.P., viz., G.O.No.73 dated
\n19-3-2003 itself having been set aside by this Court in W.P.Nos.11228,  18906,
\n18907 and 11666 of 2003.\n<\/p>\n
                16.   As far as the other Board Proceedings are concerned, the
\nmain Challenge to the above said Board Proceedings are, in  the  first  place,
\nthe  said  Board Proceedings came to be issued in violation of Section 9(A) of
\nthe Industrial Disputes Act.  To buttress  the  said  argument,  reliance  was
\nplaced upon  the  settlement  dated  8-7-1998.   It is not in dispute that the
\nemployees of the Board are  governed  by  the  provisions  of  the  Industrial
\nDisputes  Act  and the various Unions representing the employees are signatory
\nto the said settlement.  Clause 15(iii) of  the  said  settlement  is  in  the
\nfollowing terms.\n<\/p>\n
        ”  The revised pension schemes of the Government of Tamil Nadu and any
\namendments thereon from time to time will be applied to the pensioners of  the
\nTamil Nadu Electricity Board”\n<\/p>\n
        17.  Proviso (a) to Section 9(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, makes
\nit  clear that where the change in the conditions of the service applicable to
\nany workman in respect of any matter specified in the IV Schedule is  effected
\nin  pursuance  of  any  settlement  or  award, no notice under Section 9(A) is
\nrequired.  Though the learned Addl.Advocate General would attempt  to  contend
\nthat  the  changes  brought  out to the pensionary benefits are not one of the
\nitems covered by Schedule IV of the Industrial Disputes  Act,  we  are  afraid
\nthat  the  said stand may not be acceptable in view of the fact that very Item
\nNo.2 in the IV Schedule talks of pensionary benefits.  However, it  cannot  be
\ndisputed  that  Clause  15(iii)  of the Settlement dated 8-7-1998 specifically
\nprovides that the revised Pension Scheme of the Government employees  and  any
\namendments  thereof  from  time  to  time  can be straight away applied to the
\npensioners of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.  In  view  of  our  conclusion
\nbased  on Clause (a) to the proviso to Section 9(A) of the Act, we do not find
\nany scope to consider the submissions made on  Sub  Clause  (b)  of  the  said
\nproviso.\n<\/p>\n
                18.   Having  regard  to B.P.Ms.(FB) No.5 dated 26-6-1986, all
\nthe employees of the Electricity Board have been  brought  under  the  Pension
\nScheme  covered  by  the  provisions  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Electricity  Board
\nLiberalised Pension  Regulations  1960.    In  such  circumstances,  when   by
\nG.O.Nos.71  and  74  dated 19-3-2003 certain amendments were introduced to the
\npension provisions of the employees of the  State  Government,  by  virtue  of
\nClause  15(iii)  of the settlement dated 8-7-1998, the enforcement of the same
\nin respect of the employees  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Electricity  Board  becomes
\nautomatic.   In  fact, it will have to be held that mere communication to that
\neffect would be sufficient to implement any such amendments brought out by the
\nState Government in respect of pension benefits brought by it to its employees
\nin order to be made applicable to the employees of the Tamil Nadu  Electricity
\nBoard.   Further  more,  we  are  convinced  that Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
\nLiberalised Pension Regulations having brought into effect  and  Regulation  9
\nwhen  specifically  provides that the other Regulations are in addition to the
\nTamil Nadu Pension Rules and not in derogation thereof, it is  axiomatic  that
\nso long  as  the  present  changes  brought  out  in  G.O.  No.71 and 73 dated
\n19-3-2003 are not in derogation of the Tamil Nadu  Electricity  Board  Pension
\nRegulations, such amendments brought out in the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules would
\nautomatically become  part  of  the  said  Regulations.    In the light of the
\nsubsequent B.P.(FB) No.7 dated 1 7-2-1995, there is no scope to  contend  that
\nwhat  was  contemplated  in  the  erstwhile  regulation No.9 of the Tamil Nadu
\nElectricity Board Liberalised  Pension  Regulations  was  only  Civil  Service
\nRegulations and not Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978.\n<\/p>\n
                19.  As regards the submission based on Tamil Nadu Electricity
\nBoard Service Regulations 17(g) and 17(v)(gg)(i), it will have  to  be  stated
\nthat  the  same do not provide for payment of pension or any other benefits to
\nthe employees of the Board.  Those service regulations by  themselves  do  not
\nprescribe  the  various stipulations relating to the payment of pension or the
\nother allied matters.  On the other hand, it cannot be disputed  that  payment
\nof pension in respect of the employees of the Board is governed by the Pension
\nRegulations.   In  fact,  it  is  nobody’s case that payment of pension in the
\nElectricity Board and the pension regulations are covered by the provisions of
\nthe Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations.  In such  circumstances,
\nthe  argument based on the said Regulation 17(g) and 17(v)(gg)(i) of the Tamil
\nNadu Electricity Board Service Regulations to thwart  the  provisions  of  the
\nTamil  Nadu  Electricity  Board Liberalised Pension Regulations cannot also be
\naccepted.  Therefore, by virtue of Regulation 9 of the Pension Regulations and
\nClause 15(iii) of the settlement dated 8-7-1998, the import of the  amendments
\nbrought  out  in G.O.No.71, 73 and 74 became part of the regulations governing
\nthe payment of pension in respect of employees of the respondent  Board.    As
\nrightly contended by the learned Addl.Advocate General, by the impugned B.Ps.,
\nthe  second  respondent,  namely,  the  Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Electricity
\nBoard is not attempting to introduce any change in the service Regulations  or
\nin  the  Pension Regulations, but only communicating the effect of the changes
\nbrought out to the Pension Regulations of the Electricity Board  employees  by
\nvirtue  of the amendments brought out to the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules pursuant
\nto G.O.Nos.71, 73 and 74 dated 19-3-2003.  Therefore, the other argument based
\non the validity of delegation or the competence of the  second  respondent  in
\nissuing the impugned B.  Ps.  do not merit any consideration.\n<\/p>\n
                20.    Since  we  have  dealt  with  the  correctness  of  the
\nG.O.Nos.71, 73 and 74 dated 19-3-2003 in the other  batch  of  Writ  Petitions
\ncovered  by our order dated 23-10-2003 in W.P.No.11228 of 2003, etc., we adopt
\nthe said reasoning while upholding the above  said  G.O.Nos.71  and  74  dated
\n19-3-2003 and  for setting aside the G.O.No.73 dated 19-3-2003.  We therefore,
\ndo not propose to go into the details of the  other  submissions  which  touch
\nupon the correctness of the validity of those G.  Os.\n<\/p>\n
        21.   As  a  sequel to our above said conclusion, we uphold (Per) B.P.
\nCh.Nos.64 and 66 dated  31-3-2003  and  set  aside  (Per)  B.P.Ch.No.65  dated
\n31-3-2003.   Accordingly,  the  Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.10730, 11566, 11920,
\n11902, 12010, 12352, 12368, 12367, 12369, and 12520 of 2003 are  allowed;  and
\n10727,  10728, 11565, 11567, 11899, 11900, 11919, 1192 1, 11935, 11936, 11937,
\n12007, 12008, 12349, 12351, 12370, 12371, 123 72, 12519,  12522  of  2003  are
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        In  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  we  make no order as to costs.
\nConsequently, all the connected W.P.M.Ps.  are closed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Management,
\nTamil Nadu Electricity Board,
\nrepresented by its Secretary,
\nN.P.K.R.R.Maaligai,
\nElectricity Avenue,
\nAnna Salai, Chennai-2.\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Development Commisisioner &
\nSecretary,
\nThe Government of Tail Nadu,
\nFinance (Pensions) Department,
\nFort St.George,
\nChennai-9.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Bhaarathiya Electricity … vs The Management on 23 October, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23\/10\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA WRIT PETITION NO.10727 OF 2003 AND W.P.NOS. 10728, 10730 11919 to 11921, 11565 to 11567,11899, 11900, 11902, 11935 to 11937, 12367 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-102955","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBhaarathiya Electricity ... vs The Management on 23 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhaarathiya Electricity ... vs The Management on 23 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-19T20:31:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhaarathiya Electricity … vs The Management on 23 October, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-19T20:31:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3785,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003\",\"name\":\"Bhaarathiya Electricity ... vs The Management on 23 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-19T20:31:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhaarathiya Electricity … vs The Management on 23 October, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bhaarathiya Electricity ... vs The Management on 23 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhaarathiya Electricity ... vs The Management on 23 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-19T20:31:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhaarathiya Electricity … vs The Management on 23 October, 2003","datePublished":"2003-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-19T20:31:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003"},"wordCount":3785,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003","name":"Bhaarathiya Electricity ... vs The Management on 23 October, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-19T20:31:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaarathiya-electricity-vs-the-management-on-23-october-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhaarathiya Electricity … vs The Management on 23 October, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102955","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=102955"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102955\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102955"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102955"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102955"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}