Service circulars and induction-post options bind employees; parity cannot defeat the scheme, though pay anomaly relief was granted.

A statutory corporation may validly regulate service conditions through unchallenged circulars fixing promotional scales and the basis of induction posts. An employee who repeatedly opted for the Upper Division Clerk post as his induction post, and already took the benefit of that choice, cannot later claim dual induction-post treatment or invoke parity with juniors to override the applicable scheme. The Court nevertheless recognised a pay anomaly in the record and granted limited relief by applying stepping up of pay to restore parity from the relevant date, while declining to treat both LDC and UDC as induction posts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Board's circulars governing time-bound promotional scales and the restriction to one induction post were binding, and whether the respondent could claim parity with juniors notwithstanding his own option for the upper cadre.

Analysis: The Board, being a statutory corporation, was empowered under Section 15 and Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, to regulate service conditions and, in the absence of any challenge to the circulars, to issue administrative directions fixing pay scales and the basis of induction posts. The respondent had repeatedly opted to treat the Upper Division Clerk post as his induction post and had already received benefit under that choice. The Court held that an employee cannot be permitted to change options repeatedly under successive schemes, and that parity with juniors cannot be invoked to defeat an otherwise applicable service scheme. While the High Court had not properly considered the binding effect of the circulars, the record disclosed a pay anomaly warranting limited relief. In exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, the Court applied the principle of stepping up of pay to remove the anomaly, but declined to permit the respondent to treat both LDC and UDC as induction posts.

Conclusion: The Board's circulars were held operative, the respondent was not entitled to dual induction-post benefit, and the appeal succeeded only to the extent of limiting relief to stepping up of pay with parity from the relevant date.

---