# JASWANT SINGH & ORS. ETC v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC

- **Citation:** [1980] 1 S.C.R. 420
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1979-08-29
- **Bench:** Y. V. Ciiandrachud, S: Murtaza Fazal Ali, E. S. Venkataramiah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jaswant-singh-ors-etc-v-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-7768
- **Pages:** 22

## Headnote

Punjclb Reorganisation A~t 1966-Ss. 79 & 80-Scope of-Officers
and
stafi employed by Beas Control Board an4 later transferred to Bhakra Mana§'e•
ment Board-If Central Government Employees.
Constitution of India-Arts. 14 & 16-Temporary employees recruited for
specified work-Services terminated while retaining the
services of deputationists-lf violative of Arts. 14 & 16.
Central Civil Services (TemporQry Service) Rules, 1965-R. 3-GoverninCiit
servant-When would become a quasi permanent servant.
D
Labour law-Work-charged employees-If Government ·servants.
E
F
G
H
The Beas Project, which was commenced in .1960, was a joint venture of
the composite State of Punjab and the. State of Rajasthan.
All decisions ,on
policy and administrative matters relating to· the project were entrusted to a
Board known as the Beas Control Board, which was constituted by the Central
Government in consultation witlr the Stafe Governments concerned.
For i:he
purpose of construction and completion of the Project Eiigineers and a large
number of other categories of employees were taken on d'eputation from :the
States of Punjab and Rajasthan and some others. were directly recruired by the
Beas Control Board.
In th'e meactime in the year 1966, the State of Punjab was reorganized ::~nd
the new States of Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh came into
being and a part of the- Punjab TerritOry was transferred to the then Union
Territory of Himachal Pradesh. The Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 conta·lns
a chapter on Bhakra Nangal and Beas Projects.
After 1966, the Project became the concern of the State· of Rajasthan and the successor St~es of Punjab,
Haryana and the then Union Territory Jlimachal Prades-b.
The Bhakra Management Board codstituted by the Central Governm1!nt
under s. 79(1) of the Act for the a.dministration, maintenance and operation of
works specified in clauses (a) to (g) of that sub~section was empowered to
emp1oy the n'ecessary staff for the efficient discharge of its functions.
'rhe
proviso to s.. 79(4) of the Act states that every person who immediately before
the constitution of the said Board was engaged in the construction. maintenance
or operation of the worlcs shall continu'e to be so employed under the Board
in connection with the sa.id works on the same terms and conditions of service
as were ·applicable to him before such constitution until the Central Government
.bY order direct$ oth'erwise.
The Bhakra Management Board was placed· under
the control of the Central 'Government.
By virtue of s.80(1), construction of
the Beas Project was to be undertaken by the Central Governmerit on behalf
JAS\VANT SINGII V. UNION
421
<Jf the successor States and the State of Rajasthan.
Section 80(2) of the Act
A
.empowers the Central Government to constitute the Beas Coiistruction Board
and the Board was empowered to appoint such staff as- may be neceSsary for
the efficient discharge of its functions .. The first proviso to s. 80(3) is in 5im.i1ar terms to the proviso to s. 79(4). By sub-s. (5) any component of the Beas
Project in relation to which the cons-truction has been completed after November 1, 1966, may be transferr'ed by the Central Government to the Bhakra
Management. Board Constituted under s. 79 and there"upon the provisions , of
B
s. 79 become applicable as if works transferred to the Bhakra .l\fanagement
Board were included in s.79(1). Sub-section (6) of Section 80 provideS thil.t
the Bhakhra .l\fanagement Board shall be
re-named
as
the Bhakra. Beas
.l\fanagement Board, when any of the components of the Beas Project has been
transferred end that the Beas Construction Boord shall cease to exist when all
.the components of the Beas Project have been so transferred.
The Petitioners who \Vere officers and staff of various categories and whose
C
services were sought to . be terminated by wa•y of retrenchment on the completion of the Project "'-ork contended ( 1) that they were employees of the
Centre.I Government, (2) that their. con

## Text

_Characters 0–39,854 of 60,382. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39854 for what follows._

A
B
c
426
JASWANT SINGH & ORS. ETC.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.
August 29, 1979
(Y. V. CIIANDRACHUD, C.J., S: MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND
E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.]
Punjclb Reorganisation A~t 1966-Ss. 79 & 80-Scope of-Officers
and
stafi employed by Beas Control Board an4 later transferred to Bhakra Mana§'e•
ment Board-If Central Government Employees.
Constitution of India-Arts. 14 & 16-Temporary employees recruited for
specified work-Services terminated while retaining the
services of deputationists-lf violative of Arts. 14 & 16.
Central Civil Services (TemporQry Service) Rules, 1965-R. 3-GoverninCiit
servant-When would become a quasi permanent servant.
D
Labour law-Work-charged employees-If Government ·servants.
E
F
G
H
The Beas Project, which was commenced in .1960, was a joint venture of
the composite State of Punjab and the. State of Rajasthan.
All decisions ,on
policy and administrative matters relating to· the project were entrusted to a
Board known as the Beas Control Board, which was constituted by the Central
Government in consultation witlr the Stafe Governments concerned.
For i:he
purpose of construction and completion of the Project Eiigineers and a large
number of other categories of employees were taken on d'eputation from :the
States of Punjab and Rajasthan and some others. were directly recruired by the
Beas Control Board.
In th'e meactime in the year 1966, the State of Punjab was reorganized ::~nd
the new States of Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh came into
being and a part of the- Punjab TerritOry was transferred to the then Union
Territory of Himachal Pradesh. The Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 conta·lns
a chapter on Bhakra Nangal and Beas Projects.
After 1966, the Project became the concern of the State· of Rajasthan and the successor St~es of Punjab,
Haryana and the then Union Territory Jlimachal Prades-b.
The Bhakra Management Board codstituted by the Central Governm1!nt
under s. 79(1) of the Act for the a.dministration, maintenance and operation of
works specified in clauses (a) to (g) of that sub~section was empowered to
emp1oy the n'ecessary staff for the efficient discharge of its functions.
'rhe
proviso to s.. 79(4) of the Act states that every person who immediately before
the constitution of the said Board was engaged in the construction. maintenance
or operation of the worlcs shall continu'e to be so employed under the Board
in connection with the sa.id works on the same terms and conditions of service
as were ·applicable to him before such constitution until the Central Government
.bY order direct$ oth'erwise.
The Bhakra Management Board was placed· under
the control of the Central 'Government.
By virtue of s.80(1), construction of
the Beas Project was to be undertaken by the Central Governmerit on behalf
JAS\VANT SINGII V. UNION
421
<Jf the successor States and the State of Rajasthan.
Section 80(2) of the Act
A
.empowers the Central Government to constitute the Beas Coiistruction Board
and the Board was empowered to appoint such staff as- may be neceSsary for
the efficient discharge of its functions .. The first proviso to s. 80(3) is in 5im.i1ar terms to the proviso to s. 79(4). By sub-s. (5) any component of the Beas
Project in relation to which the cons-truction has been completed after November 1, 1966, may be transferr'ed by the Central Government to the Bhakra
Management. Board Constituted under s. 79 and there"upon the provisions , of
B
s. 79 become applicable as if works transferred to the Bhakra .l\fanagement
Board were included in s.79(1). Sub-section (6) of Section 80 provideS thil.t
the Bhakhra .l\fanagement Board shall be
re-named
as
the Bhakra. Beas
.l\fanagement Board, when any of the components of the Beas Project has been
transferred end that the Beas Construction Boord shall cease to exist when all
.the components of the Beas Project have been so transferred.
The Petitioners who \Vere officers and staff of various categories and whose
C
services were sought to . be terminated by wa•y of retrenchment on the completion of the Project "'-ork contended ( 1) that they were employees of the
Centre.I Government, (2) that their. conditions of service Were governed by
rules which apply to its temporary employees and (3) that the orders of ri:tren-.
-chment passed against them \vhile retaining th'e deputationists in service ·were
-violative of Arts~ 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
HELD .: 1. (a) Though the petitioners were appointed under the. orders
issued by or on behalf of the Beas Control Board of the Beas Construction
Boa.rd, they were employees of the Central Government. Such of' them as
were appointed by the Beas Control Board b'ecame the employees of the Beas
·Construction Board by virtue of the first proviso to s. 80(3). It was by and on
.behalf of the Beas Control Board that some of the petitio_ners were appointed
D
prior to the re-organization of the composite State of Punjab on November,
E ·
1966. The Beas Control Board ceased to exist and its place \Vas taken by·the
Beas Construction Board constituted on October 1, 1967. Therefore by reasOn
-of the :first proviso to s. 80(3) the petitioners became the employees or were,
·employed by the Beas Construction Board. [431-E-F,G, 432A]
(b) By virtue of s. 80(1) the Beas Project \Vas to be undertaken by the
-Central Government on behalf of the successor Stares and the State of Rajas-
. than. But the direct and immediate responsibility to construct and complete
F
-the-Works of the Beas Project was impesed by the statute on the
Central
-Government and not on the ·successor States and the State of Rajasthan. The
concerned States were only under zn obligation to provide necessary funds to
th'e Central Government and that Government is empowered to constitute the
Beas Construction Board and assig{i to that Board such functions as it may
-consider necessary.
Though the appointments of the petitioners mjght have
been made in the name of of on behalf of the Beas Construction Board they
G
were truly and in· substance made for the benefit and at the behest of the
·Central Government. The staff appointed for dis'Charging the functionS of the
Board waS appointed in order to enable the Central Government to discharge
its responsibility under s. 80(1). The petitioners are, therefore, employees of
1he Central Government.
[432B, D, E, H, 433A]
2. The contention of the petitioners that" they ''"ere . ..quasi-permanent employees in terms of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965
has no "force. Under r. 3 a Government servant is deemed to be in ·quasi:.
-permanent service if (i) he has been in continuous service for mor'e than three
B
A
B
c
D
E
'F
G
II
422
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980] I S.C.R.
years and (ii) the appointing authority being satisfied, having reg<M"d to thequality of his work, conduct and character as t-0 his suitability for employment_
in quasi-perman·ent capacity under the Government of India has made a. declaration to that effect. Although the petitioners have been in continuous temporary service for more than three years, it is for the appointing authority to
decide \Vhether they fulfil the second cond.ition or not.
No Government servant can claim entitlement to a declaration that he was in quasi-permanent
service because the question of declaring him to be quasi-permanent does not
depend merely on the fact of his being in service for a particular number of
years.
[433C-E]
3. The plea of the petitioners that they should be retained in service for
the purposes of the Boos Project even after the transfer of the completed works
of that Project to the Bhakra Management Board is without force.
The petitioners were holding their employment either under the Beas Control Board
or, after November 1, 1966 under the Beas Construction Board. The first proviso to s.79(4) is designed to protect the services of p~rsons, who; prior to the
establishment of the Bhakra Management Board, were engaged in the construction work connected with the Bhakr.a and Nangal Dams and the power houses
linked therewith.
The petitioners were \.Vorking on the Beas- Project and Were
not therefore entitled to the benefit of that proviso.
[434A, F-G]
4. Though Section 80'(5) requires a completed work of the Beas Project
to be transferred 1 to the B,hakra Management Board, it does not provide that
p'ersons who were employed in connection with such a work should also be·
transferred as employees, of the
Bhakra
Management
Board.
In the very
nature of things there could be no such provision because if any persons were
employed for the Beas Project only their employment would normally cease on
the completion of that Project.
Jn fact. the petitioners were taken in employment on temporary posts for the purpose of completing the Beas Project. On.
the" compl'etion of that Project or any other works for which they were empJoyed, their employment would normally come to an end, espe-.:;ially since the
statute from which their rights 2.re said to flo,11 does not protect that employment.
[435A-CJ
5. The firs-t proviso to s 79 ( 4) speaks ot' p'ersons who immediately before
the constitution of the Bhakra Management Board were engaged in the works
mentioned in s.79(1). The scheme of s. 80 shows
that the
Bhakr·a
Beas
1fanagement Board was n'ever ·constituted as suCh.
The only effect which the
statute brings about by s. 80(6) is the renaming of the
Bhakra Management
Board as the Bhakra Beas Management Board.
The words "constitution of
the said Board" cannot be substituted by the words "the re-naming of the said
Board". The contemplation of s. 79 (4 ~ is that only a certain class of e"mployees should receive protection in the matter of continued employment. The·
petitioners 'do not fall within that class since they were not employees of the
Bhakra Management Board immediately before October 1, 1967 when that
Board was constituted.
[435E-G]
6. Ther'e is no substance in the grieve.nee of the petitioners that the proposed
orders of retrenchment involved violation of the guarantee of equality in the
matter of employment.
The petitioners and the deputationists were not equals
1he petitioners v.'ere appointed on a purely temporary basis and their appointments \Vere governed by the rules applicable to
temporary
establishment.
\\'h:te n.·:cepting the offers of appoinrne.-it _they subscribed to a declaration that
they had understood and accepted the conditions of their employment. They
'
)
'
JASWANT SINGH v. UNION (Chandrachud, C.J.)
423
are being: r'etrenched in accordance with the conditions of appointment and
A
on completion of the Project for which they were appointed.
The deputationists on the other hand belonged to the services of the resp'ective States..
The concerned State Governments were responsible to provide th'e necessary
funds to meet all the expenses of the Bhakra Management Boord.
Since the
very b.asis of their claim, to be treated equally with the deputationists
is
fallacious their claim must fail.
[436C-E, 437 A. B, 438C]
7. (a) From the very beginning of their employment the wo,rk-cbarged
employees were engaged for execution of specified work.
They are industrial
workers entitled to the ben'efits of the provision of the Industriri.1 Disputes Act,
1947.
Their services automatically came to an end on the completion of the
works.
[439D, E]
(b) Out of 36,000 work-charged employees. 26,000 had accepted retrenchC
ment compensation in the con\':iliation proceedings.
By reason of s. 18(3)(d)
of the Industrial Disputes Act a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings is binding on all persons who \Vere employed in the
establishment to which ·the dispu!c relat'es, whether they \Vere employed on the
date of the dispute or subsequently.
The settlement arrived at would bind
the \VOrk charged employees.
[ 440B, C-D·, E]
ORIGINAL JoR1smcnoN : Writ Petitions Nos. 3598, 4369, 4423,
4536, 4391, 4505, 4376, 4658 of 1978 and 565 of 1979.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution.
L. N. Sinha (W.P. 3598), A. K .. Sen (W.P. 4369), Dr. Y. S.
I>
Chitale (W. P. 4391 and 4536), M. K. Ramamurthy (W. Ps. 4505
E
and 1246), B. P. Singh, S. S. Javali and Ashok Kaul for the Petitioners.
Sushi/ Kumar. for Respondent No. 10 in all Writ Petitions
S. N. Kackar, Sol. Genl. (W. Ps. 3598, 4369 and 4505), E. C.
Agrawala (W. Ps. 4369, 4505 ahd 3598), R. N.
Sachthey (in all
matters and for the State of Haryana in W.P. 565)
and Miss A.
Subhashini for the other appearing. Respondents.
Anand Prakash, P. H. Parekh, B: >Datta and K. K. Manchanda
for RR 11-17 (WP 4536) R. 14 (in WPs 4505 and 4658)
S. M. Jain for R. 4 in 3598, 4369, 4376 and 4391
B. D. Sharma for R. 4 in rest of the W. Ps.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
This is a group
of nine Writ Petitions
F
G
undeJ Article 32 of the Constitution. raising the questions as to wheB
ther the petitioners are employees of the Central Government; if so,
whether their conditions of service are governed by rules which apply
A
c
D
..
E
G
H
424
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980) 1 S.C.R.
to temporary employees of the Central Government; and lastl)', whether the orders of retrenchment proposed or passed against them are
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
There are in all 542 petitioners in Writ Petitions
Nos. 3598,
4369, 4423, 4376 and 4391 of 1978.
This group consists of
Engineers, Overseers, Teachers, Sub-divisional Clerks, Clerks, Actcounts Clerks. Time-keepers,
Research
Assistants,
Store-keepers,
Meter Readers, Daughtsmen, Tracers and Steno-typists. In these five
Writ Petitions orders of retrenchment were proposed to be passed
against the petitioners but those orders have been stayed
by this
Court during the pendency of the Writ Petitions.
In Writ Petition
No. 565 of 1979, there are 158 petitioners amongst whom are Shift
Engineers, Line Superintendents and Sectional Officers. The 375 petitioners in the remaining three Writ Petitions Nos. 4505, 4536 and
4658. of 1978 are work-charged employees.
The petitioners in these
three Writ Petitions have already been retrenched.
They are industrial employees and there is an Award of 1974 by which their rights
have been adjudicated upon.
We will deal with the petitions of work-charged employees separately.
Their cases stand on an altogether different
footing
from
those of other employees.
pur reference to the petitioners' immediately hereinafter will mean petitioners other than work charge<j ·employees.
Before examining the petitioners' contentions, it is necessary to
have a broad acquaintance with t,he initiation and implementation of
the Bhakra-Nangal·and Beas Construction Projects, the provisions of
the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 31 of 1966, and the circumstances in
which a conflict has arisen between the competing right of petitioners
on one hand, who were recruited directly and the 'Deputationists' on
the other, who belong to service cadres of certain State Governments
and whose services have been lent for the purposes of the aforesaid
Projects.
The construction of the Beas Project was commenced in the year
1960 as a joint venture of, the erstwhile State of Punjab and the State
of Rajasthan, by mutual agreement between the two States.
All decisions on policy and administrative matters were taken by a Board
known as the Be-as Control Board, which was constit'uteci by the Central Government in consultation with the two States. on February 10,
1961.
The Beas Control Board was presided over by the Governor
C'f tl1e then Punjab and its members included Ministers of the States
of Punjab and Rajasthan, and senior officers ot the C?entral GovernI
JASWANT SINGH v. UNION ( Chandrachud, C.J.)
4 2 5
ment arid of the two States. The decisions of the Beas Control Board
A
used to be irnpleme!nted by the Punjab Goveni.ment which was administering and executing the works on the project. Expenditure for
the project was shared by the Punjab and Rajasthan Governments.
With the passing of the Punjab Reorganisation Act which came
into force on November 1, 1966, the new State of Haryana and the
Union Territory of Chandigarh came into being, having been formed
out of the territory of the erstwhile State of Punjab. A part of the
Punjab territory was als'? transferred to what was then the
Union
Territory of Hirnacha! Pradesh. What remained with
Punjab
became the new State of Punjab.
1110 Punjab Reorganisation Act contains a separate chapter, Part
VIII, on "Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects".
With
effect
from
November 1, 1966, the Bhakra-Nangal Project and the Beas Project
became the concern of the State of Rajasthan and of the successor
States of the erstwhile State of Punjab, namely, the new States of Punjab
and Haryana and the then Union Territory of Hirnachal Pradesh.
By section 79 (1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, the 'Bhakra
l\far;agernent Board' was constituted by the Central Government for
administration, management and operation of the Bhakra N angal Proj.ect which included the Bhakra Darn, the Nangal Darn, certain irrigation headworks, power houses and sub-stations. By section
79 (2),
the B. M. Board consists of (a) a whole-time Chairman and two
whole-time members to be appointed by the Central Government;
(b) a representative each of the Governments of the States of Punjab,
Haryana and Rajasthan and the Union Territory of Himacha! Pradesh
to be nominated by the respective Governments or Administrator, as
the case may be; and ( c)
two representatives of the Central Government to be nominated by that Government. By Section 79(3), the
functions of the B. M. Board include (a) the regulation of the supply
of water from the Bhakra-Nangal Project to the States of Haryana,
Punjab and Rajasthan; (b) the regulation of the supply of power to
any Electricity Board or other authority in charge of the distribution of
power; (c) the construction of such of tile remaining works connected with the Right Bank Power House as the <;:entral Government may
specify; and (d) such other functions as the Central Government may,
after consultation with the Governments of the States of Haryana,
Punjab and Rajasthan, entrust to it. Sub-section ( 4) of section 79
gives to the B.M. 'l3oard the power to employ such staff as it may con-
/ sider necessary for the efficient discharge of its functions, subject to an
important proviso to which we will refer in due course. Sub-section
B
c
))
E
F
G
D
A.
E
H
426
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980] 1 S.C.R.
(5) of section 79 provides that the Governme111ts of the
successor
States and of Rajasthan slmli at all times provide the necessary funds
to the B. M. Board to meet all expenses (including the salaries and
allowances of the staff) required for the discharge of its functions
and that such amounts shall be apportioned among the successor
States, the State of Rajasthan and Electricity Boards of the said States
in such proportion as the Central Government may, having regard to
the benefits to each of the said States or Boards, specify.
By subsection (6), the B.M. Board is under the control. of the Central Gov-
~rnment and has to comply with such directions, as may from time to
time be given to it by that Government.
Sub-section (9) gives to the
B.M. Board th~ power, with the previous approvai of the Central
Government, to make regulations for certain nratters, including appoint.
ments and the regulation of the conditions of service, of the officers
and other staff of the Board.
Section 80 ( 1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act provides that the
construction, including the completion of any work
already commenced, of the Beas Project shall on and from the 1st November,
1966 be undertaken by the Central Government on behalf of the successor St-ates and the State of Rajasthan : Provided that tM Governments of the successor St;ites and the State of Rajasthan shall provide
the necessary ,funds to the Central Government for the expenditure on
the project including the expenses of the Beas Construction Board. For
the discharge of its functions under sub-section (I), sub-section (2)
of section 80 empowers the Central Government, in consultation with
the Governments of the successor States and the State of Rajasthan,
to constitute a Board to be called the Beas Construction Board. Subsection (3) of section 80 provides that the notification constituting the
B. C. Board may empower the Board to appoint such staff as may
be necessary for the efficient discharge of its functions. There is >an
important proviso to this sub-section to which we will turn later. Subsection (5) of section 80 provides that any component of the Beas
Project in relation to which the construction has been completed after
the appointed day may be transferred by the Central Government to
the Bhakra Management Board constituted under section 79, wllfreupon the provisions of that section s~all apply as if it were a work
included in sub-section (1) of that section. By sub-section (6), the
Bhakra Management Board constituted under section 79 is to be renamed as the Bhakra Beas Management Board when any of the components of the Beas Project is transferred under sub-section (5). The
Bea5 Construction Board is to cease to exist when all the components
of the Beas Project have been so transferred.
JASWANT SINGH v. UNION (Chandrachud, C.J.)
427
Thus, Part VIII of the Punjab Reorganisation Act provides for the
<eonstitution and prescribes the functions and powers of three different
Boards: (1) The Bhakra Management Board, (2) The Beas Ccnstruction Board and (3) The Bhakra Beas Management Board. For
brevity, these Boards, are mostly referred to in this judgment as the
B.M. Board, the B.C. Board and the B.B.M. Board respectively. The
B.M. Board and the B.C. BCJard were constituted on October 1, 1967.
The B.M. Board was renamed as B.B.M. Board on May 15,
1976
when two components of the Beas Project,
the
Bhatinda-Sangrur
Transmission Line and the Panipat Sub-Station, were transferred to
the B.M. Board. Prior to reorganisation, there was only one Board in
·existence, called the Beas Control Board, which was constituted · on
February 10, 1961.
We have noticed that the Beas Project which, prior to the reorganisation of Punjab, was a joint venture of the erstwhile State of
Punjab and the State of Rajasthan, became a venture of the successor
'States and the State of Rajasthan with effect from.November 1, 1966.
Prior to the reorganisation, the management and construction works
-of Bhakra-Nangal Project as well as of the Beas Project were under
the control of the erstwhile State of Punjab, though the entire expenditure for the two Projects was shared by Punjab and Rajasthan.
By
ihe Reorganisation Act, the entire expenditure for the
construction
and completio1~ of the Beas Project was to be shared by the successor
States aad the State of Rajasthan but the responsibility of construction
and completion of the Beas Project was entrusted to the Central Gov-
·ernmcnt.
The petitioners were appointed for the purpose of construction and
completion of the Beas Project. Most of them have been working as
Engineers, Sectional Officers, Accounts Clerks, Teachers, etc. for over
11 years. The construction works of the Beas Project were nearing
·completion as a result of which, they were nnder an imminent threat
of retrenchment from service. The petitioners came to know that the
Central Govermnent had taken a pol'cy decision to retain in service
for the purposes of the Bhakra-Nangal Scheme, only such employees
who belonged to the services of the Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan
Governments and who were serving on deputation in connection with
the works of the Bhakra-Nangal Scheme. The petitioners have filed
these writ petitions to restrain the Government from enforcing that
<lecision.
The case of the petitioners is that they are holding posts under the
Central Government and are governed by Rules applicable
to the
Ceritra1 C.overnment employees. Consequently, their services were not
{\
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980] 1 S.C.R.
liable to be terminated ahd they were not liable to the retrenched
except in accordance with the said Rnles. In any event, according to
the petitioners, they are entitled to be retained in service and to continue in service as employees of the Bhakra Beas Management Board,
after the components of the Beas Project are transferred to that Board.
The Petitioners further contend that they and the employees of the
various State Governments who had come on deputation in connection
with the Beas-Sutlej Project were discharging similar duties and were
clothed with similar responsibilities. The petitioners, no less than the
clepuMionists, had rendered service to the satisfaction of their employers and therefore they could not be discriminated against in the·
matter of continuing in their present employment. The policy initiated
by the Government of India· under which it was decided to retain the
deputationists in service and retrench direct recruits like the petitioners
is, according to the petitioners, violative of the guarantee of equality
contained in Article 14 of the Constitution. In any event, so the petitioners contend, they cannot be removed from service while officers.
junior to them and less qualified than them who had come on deputation from other States are retained in service.
On these grounds the petitioners pray by their Writ Petitions that
(a) the decision of the Central Government to retrench the petitioners
from service be quashed; (b) respondents be directed to retain the
petitioners in service in the Beas Project and continue to employ them
in the posts held by them after their transfer to the Bhakra Beas
Management Board; and ( c) respondents be asked to issue certificates
to the petitioners that they are quasi-permanent employees within the
meaning of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service)
Rules,
1965.
The Union of India, the States of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthau and
Himachal Pradesh, the State Electricity Boards of these four States, the
Bhakra Beas Management Board, the Beas Construction Board, the 1
General Manager of the Beas Project, three Chief Engineers and two
Superinfending Engineers of the Beas-Sut!ej Link ·Project and the
Beas Dam Project have been impleaded as respondents to the Writ
Petitions.
The contention of the respondents, as set out in the affidavits filed
on their behalf, is briefly this : Persons like petitioners who were
· appointed by the Beas Construction Board are not employees of the
Central Government and therefore they cannot claim any declaration
or relief on the basis that they are employees of the Central Government. The petitioners were .all employed by the Beas Construction
•
,

JASWANT SINGH v. UNION (Chandrachud, C.l.)
429
Board on a purely temporary basis and at the time of their appointment they had given written undertakings confirming the terms of
their appointment. They could not be perntitted to resile from their
undertakings and ask for being absorved in permanent employment.
The J>ulk of the regular employees working on the Beas Project belonged to the partner-States of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan where
~-· they held liens on their posts in their parent departments. The partnerStates having been unable to meet the employment requirements of the
Beas Project. the Beas Construction Board appointed the petitioners
on an ad hoc, temporary basis with a clear understanding that they
will have no right to bi retained in service after the completion of the
Beas Project. By the very nature of its requirement, the Beas Cot\S·
truction Board had no authority to employ any person permanently
and indeed it was for that reason that the Board had to resort to
periodical termination and re-employment of certain directly recruited
employees.
As the Beas Project did not have any permanent or independent cadre of its own, the services of the petitioners were governed
by the express terms mentioned in the letters of their appointment.
The first question which arises for consideration is whether the
petitioners arc employees of the Central Government. Whereas
the
petitioners contend that they are, learned Solicitor General contends
on behalf of the Union
Government that the petitioners
were
·appointed either by' the Beas Control Board or by the Beas Constrnction Board, depending on whether the appointments were made prior
to or after November 1, 1966, that the Central Government had no
power or authority to make appointments to these two Boards, that the
appointments of the petitioners were made by one or the other Board
expressly for a temporary period and for the specific purpose of completing the works of the Beas Project and that on completion of those
works the petitioners cannot become the employees of the Central
·Government.
These rival submissions require an exam;nation of the provisions
<>f the Punjab Roorganisation Act on which both sides rely in support
A
B
c
D
E
F
vf their contentions, but before that, it ;, nece<Sary to state that the
offers of appointment were made to the petitioners mostly by the
<1
· Executive Engineer or the S.D.O., Adm'nistration, on behalf of the
Superin•ending Engineer, Department of Cnns•ruction, Beas
Dam,
Talwara Township. These offers were accepted by the petitioners.
The provisions of the Punjab Reorganisati<m Act afford in
our
opinion a clear answer to the question whether the
petitioners are
H
employees of the Central Government.
9-S3ISCI/79
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980] 1 S.C.R.
By virtue of section 78(1) of that Act, all rights and liabilities of
the erstwhile State of Punjab in relation to the Bhakra-Nangal Project and the Beas Project became the rights and liabilities of the
successor States with effect from November 1, 1966. Under section
78 ( 4), "Beas Project" means the works which were either under construction or were to be constructed as components of the Beas-Snilej
Link Project (Unit I) and Pong Dam Prvject on the Beas river (Urnt
Il).
Section 79 ( 1) confers upon the Central Government the power to
constitute the Bhakra Management Board for
the
administration,
maintenance and operation of the works specified in clauses (a) to
(g) of that
sub-section.
Section 79(4)
empowers the
Bh•kr,1
Management Board to employ such stnff as it may consider necessary
for the efficient discharge of its functions. The first proviso to this
sub-section is important and may be extracted fully :
"Provided that every person who immediately before the
constitution of the said Board was engaged in the construction, maintenance or operation of the works in sub-section
( 1) shall continue to be so employed under the Board in
connection with the said works on the same terms and conditions of service as were applicable to him before such constitution until the Central
Government
by
order
directs
otherwise."
Sub-section ( 6) provides that the Bhakra Management Board shall
be under the control of the Central Government and shall comply
with such directions as may from time to time be given to it by that
Government.
Section 80 ( 1) provides that notwithstanding anything contained
in the Reorganisation Act or in any other law,
the construction
(including the completion of any work already commenced) of the
Beas Project shall, on and from November 1, 1966, be undertaken bY
the Central Government on behalf of the successor States and
the
State of Rajasthan. Under the proviso to sub-section (I), the successor State> and the State of Rajasthan are under an obligation to provide the necessary funds to the Central Government for meeting the
expenditure on the Beas Project for the discharge of its
functions .
under sub-section ( 1). The Central Government is empowered by
sub-section ( 2) of section 80 to constitute the
Beas Construction
Board. The notification constituting that Board may empower
the
Board, as provided in sub-section (3) of section 80, to appoint such
staff as may be necessary for the efficient discharge of its functions.
JASWANT SINGH v. UNION (Chandrachud, C.l.)
431
The first proviso to sub-section (3) is also important and may be
extracted fully :
"Provided that every person who immediately before the
constitution of the Board was engaged in the construction or
any work relating to the Beas Project shall continue to be
so employed by the Board in connection with the said works
on the same terms and conditions of service as were applicable to him before such constitution until the Central Government by order directs otherwise''.
By sub-section ( 5) any component of the Beas Project in relation to
which the construction has been completed after November 1, 1966
may be transferred by the Central Government to the Bhakra Management Board constituted under section 79 and thereupon the provisions
of section 79 become applicable as if a work transferred to the Bhakra
Management Board were included in sub-section (1) of section 79.
Sub-section (6) of section 80 provides that the Bhakra Management
Board contituted under section 79 shall bo "re-named" as the Bhakra
Beas Management Board when any of the components of the
Beas
Project has been transferred under sub-section (5) and that the Beas
Construction Board shall cease to exist whe1,1 all the components of
the Beas Project have been so transferred.
These provisions leave no doubt that the
p~titioners, though
appointed under orders issued by t'>r on behalf of the Beas Control
Board or the Beas Construction Board are employees of the Central
Government. Such of the petitioners as were appointed by the Beas
Control Board became the employees of the Beas Construction Board
by virtue of tjie first proviso to section 80(3) which we have extracted
above. The construction of the Beas Project was commenced in the
year 1960 as a joint venture of the composite State of Punjab and the
State of Rajasthan. The Beas Control Board was
established
on
February 10, 1961 and it is by and on behalf of that Board that some
of the petitioners were appointed prior to November 1, 1966 when
the Punjab Reorganisation Act came into force. The Beas Control
Board ceased to exist and its place was taken by the Beas Construction
Board which was constituted on October 1, 1967. The remaining petitioners were appointed by or under the authority of the Beas Construction Board. The position which therefore emerges is that either by
reason of the first proviso to section 80(3) under which every person.
who immediately before the. constitution of the Beas
Construction
Board was engaged in the construction of any work relating to the
Beas Project became entitled to continue to be so employed by the
Beas Construction Board, or because the appointments were made for
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
A
B
c
D
E
F.
G
H
432
SUPREME COUll.T REPORTS
[1980] 1 S.C.R.
the first time by the Beas Construction Board itself, the petitioners
became the employees or were employed by the Beas Construction
Board.
That leads to the question whether the Beas Construction Board
was a body incorporate with an independent statutory existence or
whether it was merely a limb of the Central Government. Section
80{1), which clinches the matter, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in tlle Reorganisation Act or in any other Joaw,
t!:te
construction and completion of any work of the Beas Project shall be
undertaken by the Central Government on and from November
1,
1966. It is undoubtedly true that under the said provision, the Beas
Project was to be undertaken by the Central Government on behalf
of the successor States and the State of Rajasthan. But the direct and
immediate responsibility to construct and complete works of the Beas
Project was imposed by the statute on the Central Government aud
not on the successor States and the State of Rajasthan. Under the proviso to section 80 ( 1), the Governments of these States are only under
an obligation to provide the necessary funds to the Central Government for meeting the expenditure on the Beas Project, including the
expenses of the Beas Construction Board in behalf of the discharge of
its functions under sub-section (1). The
Central
Government
is
empowered by section 80(2) (a) to constitute the Beas Construction
Board "with such members as it may deem fit" and to assign to that
Board "such functions as it may consider necessary''.
In the light of these provisions, we find no substance in the contention of the Union Government that the petitioners are employees
of the Beas Construction Board and not of the Central Government.
The constitution of the Beas Construction Board is a matter of administrative expediency provided for by section 80(2). in order to enable
the Central Government to act through a stututory agency for the purpose of discharging its functions and obligations under section 80(1).
Section 80(3) shows that it is by virtue of the authorisation contained
in the notification issued by the Central Government constituting the
Beas Construction Board that the Board acquires the power and .
authority to appoin• the staff which is necessary for the efficient discharge of its functions. The Beas Construction Board, in appointing
its staff, act' in pursuance of an authority delegated to it by the Central
Government or conferred upon it by that Government. In one word
therefore, though the appointments of the petitioners may have been
made in •he name of or on behalf of the Beas Construction Board, they
were truly and ;n ~ubstance made for the benefit and at the behest of
the Central Government. The staff appointed for discharging the funoiions of the Board WaS appointed in order to enable 'the Ceiltrill
"
I
JASWANT SINGH v. UNION (Chandrachud, C.l.)
433
Government to discharge its responsibility under section 80 (1 )
of
undertaking the construction and completion of the works of the Beas
Project.
There is therefore no doubt thal! petitioners are employees
'of the Centra.1 Government
Having found that the petitioners are employees of the Central
Government, the next question which we must proceed to examine is
whether their conditions of service are governed by rules which apply
to temporary employees of the Central Government.
One of the principal reliefs claimed by the petitioners is that the
Government of India be directed to issue certificates to them to the
effect that they are quasi-permanent employees in terms of the Central
Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. It is impossible to
entertain the plea that the petitioners are entitled to any such certificate. Rule 3 of the aforesaid rules provides that a Government servant
shall be deemed to be in quasi-permanent service if, (i) he has been
in continuous service for more than three years and (ii), the appointing authority being satisfied, having regard to the quality of his work,
conduct and character as to his suitability for employment in quasipermanent capacity under the Government of India, has made a declaration to that effect. It does appear that the petitioners have been in
continuous temporary service for more than three years but whether
they fulfil the second condition or not is a matter to be decided by the
appointing authority having regard to the various circumstances mentioned therein. No Government servant can claim entitlement to a
declaration that he is in quasi-permanent service, because the question
as to whether he is entitled to such a declaration does not depend upon
the mere fact of his being in service for a particular number of years.
We cannot therefore grant to the petitioners this particular relief.
We would however like to make it clear that if by reason of being
in the temporary service of the Government of India, any benefit like
terminal gratuity or death-gratuity provided for in the rules of 1965
accrues in favour of the petitioners, it will be open to them to make
a representation in that behalf to the appropriate authorities.