Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Madan Pal, Advocate for the petitioner.

*** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing Clause (ii) of Sales Circular No.U-21/2005 dated 27.6.2005 (Annexure P-3) and Clause (3) of Sales Circular No.U-40/2005 dated 17.8.2005 (Annexure -P-4) whereby it has been stated that the Scheme is not applicable to the Nigam employees and the employees of UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL and its retirees respectively.

The petitioner is aggrieved and is challenging Clause (ii) of Sales Circular No.U-21/2005 dated 27.6.2005 (Annexure P-3) wherein it has been mentioned that the Scheme is not applicable to Nigam employees. The petitioner has further challenged the Sales Circular No.U-40/2005 dated 17.8.2005 (Annexure P-4) Clause (3) which says "the Scheme is not applicable to the employees of the UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL and its retirees.

It is the contention of the petitioner that these clauses in the above-mentioned Circulars are in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India where equally situated persons have been discriminated against and no equal protection has been provided by the respondent-Department. It is the submission of the petitioner that the employees and retirees of other Departments of the Government have full right to get the benefit of the policies, Annexures P-3 and P-4 but the employees of UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL and its retirees have been excluded from the benefit of the said Circular letters, and the said discrimination made amongst the employees is not reasonable without any logic. No rationale therefore, can be said to have been put-forth which could justify the leaving out/excluding the employees of the Nigam and UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL and its retirees. Therefore, the said policy deserves to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

We have heard counsel for the petitioner who has put-forth his argument as has been asserted by the petitioner in the writ petition referred to above. On the first flash, the argument as put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner appears to be attractive where he states that discrimination has been made in the impugned circulars between the employees/retirees of Nigam, UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL and employees/retirees of other Government Departments. It appears as if employees as a category have been discriminated against when it comes to the employees/retirees of the Nigam and UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL but we are afraid, the same cannot be taken as a basis to quash a condition imposed in a decision merely on the basis that it excludes a particular category of employees working in a particular Department. The intention of the Scheme which has been put- forth by Sale Circular No.U-21/2005 dated 27.6.2005 (Annexure P-3) is to inculcate the habit of regular payment of bills. The purpose behind the Scheme is that the defaulters should be encouraged to pay the bills of their electricity charges on regular basis so that the chronic default on the part of the consumers can be brought to an end. What has been sought to be done through the policy is that if the consumers continue to pay their current bills regularly, no further surcharge shall be added on the arrears of the bills. The actual arrears in respect of the consumers who enter the Scheme will neither be increased nor decreased, but the waiver of the surcharge is subject to regular payment of bills for the next 20 months and the total adjustment is to be given at the end of said period of 20 months. The paying consumers are eligible for a waiver of 5% of their arrears (principal + surcharge) with each monthly payment for monthly billing of agricultural category and waiver of 10% of their arrears (principal + surcharge) with each bi-monthly payment for bi-monthly billing for rural domestic category. If the consumer defaults in making payment even for a single month in between, then whatever benefit of waiver he has earned upto that time, would be denied to him. The arrears would be unfrozen and calculated again on the amount pending on 16.6.2005. The intention, therefore, is that apparently the incentive and the waiver is based on the regular payment of bills.

The rationale, therefore, for excluding the employees/retirees of the UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL is that the cleansing and disciplining process should start from one's own house itself and is based on the principle of practice before you preach. If the employees/retirees of the Nigam or UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL do not lead by example by paying the electricity bills on time, the Department itself would not be in a position to ask the employees of other departments and the general public to make regular payments of the bills. It does not behove and lie in the mouth of the employees/retirees of the Nigam or UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL to say that they will not pay the bills or they were not paying the bills regularly. In any case, it is upto the respondent-Department to frame its own policies and they are the best judges while framing the same, so as to come to a conclusion as to which category of consumers deserve and require benefit of a particular Scheme as that would depend upon various factors which the Department takes into consideration while formulating a policy. In the present case, as has been held, there is a justifiable rationale behind not forwarding the benefit of the Scheme to the employees/retirees of Nigam and UHBVNL/DHBVNL/HPGCL/HVPNL.