High Court · 2025 on 21 May 2025

Judgment

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated

05.06.2024 passed by the Chief Engineer (Distribution), Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur, discontinuing the petitioners' services. The petitioners pray for a mandamus, restraining the respondents from interfering in the petitioners' discharge of their duties, of positions respectively held by them on the staff of the Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Gorakhpur and direct the respondents to pay the petitioners' monthly emoluments w.e.f. November, 2023 till date.

2. The Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Varanasi is a subsidiary company of the U.P. Power Corporation Limited. Both of them are instrumentalities of the State Government. In the exercise of powers under Section 181, read with Section 42(2) to (8) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Uttar Pradesh Regulatory Commission (for short, 'the Regulatory Commission') issued a notification dated 04.10.2007, notifying the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum & Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2007 (for short, 'the Regulations of 2007'). Clause

3.0 of the Regulations of 2007 envisaged the constitution of a Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum to be established by 2 every Distribution Licensee within the period of three months from the appointed date. Under Clause 3.1 (4), the establishment of such Consumer Grievance Redressal Fora was contemplated at Varanasi, Allahabad, Gorakhpur, Azamgarh, Mirzapur and Basti. Under Clause 3.1.3, the appointment of staff for each Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum was envisaged. The staff for each Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum was to comprise of three personal assistants, two office assistants, three peons and one peon/ Class-IV employee. The emoluments payable to each such category of employees were specified under Clause 3.1.3., subject to revision by the Regulatory Commission. In accordance with the provisions of the Regulations of 2007, the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum was established at Gorakhpur and continues to be functional, according to the petitioners. The petitioners were all appointed at the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Gorakhpur.

3. Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 were appointed on clerical posts, whereas petitioner Nos.4, 5 and 6 were appointed as Class-IV employees. Petitioner No.1, Shobhit Sharma was

appointed for the first time by an order dated 04.08.2010, issued by the Secretary, Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Gorakhpur as a personal assistant for a period of six months. This appointment was extended for the first petitioner a number of times over, so much so that the said petitioner says that he has remained in continuous employ until the cause of action arose. The second petitioner, Amitesh Kumar Srivastava was similarly appointed a personal assistant. He was appointed on 02.11.2012. His case is also the same as that of the first petitioner. The third petitioner, Kanaklata Jaiswal was appointed as an office assistant by an order dated 31.08.2012. Her 3 services have been extended from time to time and she is in continuous employment. The fourth petitioner, Narendra Kumar Singh was appointed as a peon vide order dated 10.10.2013. He also asserts that he has been granted repeat extensions through successive orders, extending his appointment. But, he has remained in continuous employ. The fifth petitioner, Surendra Kumar Rao was appointed vide order dated

06.01.2016 to a Class-IV post and has continued ever-since, on the basis of successive extension orders. The last and the sixth petitioner, Anil Kumar was appointed a peon. He was appointed for the first time on 28.07.2011, but ever-since, his appointment has been extended and his retention in service continuous.

4. The petitioners generally plead a case in paragraph No.19 of the writ petition that they have been in continuous employment right from the date of their initial appointment on the strength of repeat orders of extension. There is no break in service for them. It is also asserted that the petitioners' conduct has been satisfactory and there is no complaint as regards their work. They have drawn monthly emoluments in accordance with Regulations of 2007, as enhanced from time to time. The petitioners draw attention of the Court to an order of the Regulatory Commission dated 09.01.2014, granting enhancement in monthly emoluments payable to the petitioners. The petitioners functioned till the month of October,

2023. There were recommendations forwarded for granting further extension in service to the petitioners from November, 2023 to May, 2024. However, on occasion, these recommendations did not result in orders, granting extension.

5. The petitioners, aggrieved by the said inaction on the respondents' part, filed representations to the Chief Minister of the State on 04.01.2024 and 30.05.2024. One of these 4 representations made its way to the Director, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited from the Chief Minister's office, who made an endorsement on the same. On the 5th of June, 2024, an order was passed by the Chief Engineer (Distribution), Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur, referring to the notification of the Electricity Commission dated 31.07.2022 as the basis of refusing extension to the petitioners. This order dated 05.06.2024 is assailed by the petitioners through the present writ petition.

6. A notice of motion was issued on 11.11.2024 and a counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4. The parties agreed that the writ petition could be heard on these affidavits with Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aditendra Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, waiving his opportunity to file a rejoinder.

7. Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aditendra Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Devesh Vikram, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4, Mr. Adarsh Bhushan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1.

8. The submission of Mr. Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate is that the petitioners have been appointed, may be on contractual basis, under the Regulations of 2007, but all of them have worked continuously 10 years or so. Now, the stand of the respondents is that the Regulatory Commission have issued the notification dated 21.07.2022, notifying the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum) Regulations, 2022 (for short, 'the 5 Regulations of 2022'), published in the U.P. Gazette on

21.07.2022. He points out that the respondents' case is that under the Regulations of 2022, the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum has been re-constituted. The Regulations of 2007 have been repealed by the Regulations of 2022. Under the Regulations of 2022, there is no provision for employing any staff for the Consumer Grievance Redressal Fora.

9. It is argued by Mr. Khare that the petitioners may have been working contractually, but considering the 10 years' long retention in service and the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum being in existence under the Regulations of 2022, with a vast establishment of such fora, from the Sub-Divisional level to the company level, the workload for these Consumer Grievance Redressal Fora would increase manifold. He submits that after all, the members of the Forum would not work on their own. They would require ministerial hands as well as Class-IV employees. The submission, therefore, is that it is but fair that persons, who have worked for the last 10 years satisfactorily, should be preferred over new hands. He submits that with a re- constituted Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, to throw out the petitioners, would be an arbitrary and unfair act, as the successor body under the Regulations of 2022 is after all one and the same, that was functioning under the Regulations of

2007. He also emphasizes that nothing is provided under the Regulations of 2022, that may preclude grant of extension of services to the petitioners.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Devesh Vikram and Mr. Adarsh Bhushan, learned Counsel, who represent the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and their Authorities, have said in one voice that the petitioners' engagement was entirely contractual with a validity of six months and a fixed 6 honourarium, that was renewed from time to time. There is no right, that has accrued in favour of the petitioners to continue in service. It is also emphasized that the establishment of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum at Gorakhpur, of which they were employees, has ceased to exist and a new establishment under the Regulations of 2022 has come into existence. It is argued that there is no provision under the Regulations of 2022, creating posts of stenographers, peons or Class-IV employees, as it was under the Regulations of 2007. Therefore, there is no way that the petitioners' can continue in service. They cannot thrust themselves upon the respondents and force them to employ the petitioners.

11. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

12. It is no doubt true that the petitioners have worked for a period of ten years, but it is equally true that their engagement was purely contractual and the appointment letters show that from time to time, the engagement was extended for a period of three months. It does not appear that the petitioners were selected in accordance with Rules against a post. It was just an engagement. The mere fact that the engagement continued for ten years, does not of itself confer a right upon the petitioners to retention in service. There is no lien of any kind or a right to be re-employed, even contractually, either in law or equity. It is equally true that the petitioners were part of a establishment, that was set up under the Regulations of 2007. That establishment was the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum at Gorakhpur. True, it is that now too, there is a Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum at Gorakhpur established by the Regulatory Commission in the exercise of their statutory powers, already referred, but this establishment is one in terms 7 of the Regulations of 2022, that have been made after repealing the Regulations of 2007. These regulations do not have provision for posts of stenographers, clerks or peons. The arguments of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners that the new establishment would require the assistance of stenographers, clerks, peons etc., considering that they might have lots of work to handle, is no ground to find for the petitioners a right to continue or a right to be re-engaged. It is a policy decision for the Regulatory Commission about how they would manage the new Consumer Grievance Redressal Fora in the absence of a provision for ministerial hands or peons etc. under the Regulations of 2022. It is a possibility that they might outsource work through an Outsourcing Company or manage it in some other way, but that is no concern, either of the petitioners or this Court. There is no edifice surviving after repeal of the Regulations of 2007 that may entitle the petitioners to claim a right to be appointed in the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, established under the Regulations of 2022.

13. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order.

14. This petition fails and is dismissed.

15. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Anoop (J.J. Munir) Judge ANOOP KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad