RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR Vs. SHRIKISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two special appeals under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court ordinance, one by the State of Rajasthan and the other by the Rajasthan State electricity Board, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred to be the Board) against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 17th October, 1968, quashing the order Ex. 1 dated 29th June, 1967, of the Chairman of the Board, retiring the respondent Shri Shrikishan from service and further directing the respondent State govt. and the Board not to give effect to the order qua the petitioner Shri shrikishan. Both these appeals shall be disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE relevant facts may be briefly stated as follows:-The respondent Shri Shrikishan is a resident of Kishangarh and was born on 1-7-1910. He joined Government service in the erstwhile State of kishangarh as a wireman in the State Power House. With the formation of Rajasthan, the respondent became the employee of the Stale of rajasthan. He was a Head Line-man with effect from 1-4-1950. Sometime in the year 1957. (on 28-6-1957) the Rajasthan State electricity Board was constituted, in pursuance of the relevant provisions of the Electricity Supplies Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as the act ). After the formation of the Board the State Government issued directions under Section 78-A of the Act vide order Ex. A dated 12th february, 1958, placing the services of the employees of the Electrical and mechanical Department excluding the Electrical Inspectorate of the State at the disposal of the Board. This order indicated the manner of regulation of the service conditions as follows:-

(3.) THE writ was opposed by the appellants. The reply of the Board was that the services of the respondent like other employees of the Power Houses were provisionally placed at the disposal of the Board and that he was only on deputation with the Board and never came to be absorbed in the service of the board and that he could be retired on reaching the age of 55 years in terms of the service Rules as amended in June, 1967. It was also urged that even after the transfer of the Power Houses by the State Government to the Board, the State government continued to exercise disciplinary control over employees whose services were placed at the disposal of the Board, In the reply as also by means of a separate application the Board also contended the Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction having regard to a serious dispute on a question of fact between the parties viz. whether the petitioner was or was not an employee of the state. The State filed a separate reply more or less on the same lines.