JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Neerav Chitravanshi and Sri Vikrant Raghuvanshi, learned counsels for petitioners and Ms. Renu Mishra, Sri R.N. Sharma, Sri A.P. Singh and Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsels for respondents. 2. The Division Bench has referred the following question of law for consideration:- "Whether the provisions of Regulation 351-A of Civil Services Regulations framed by the State Government shall be applicable to the employees of the U.P. Power Corporation in the light of provisions of Regulation 2 of U.P. State Electricity Board (Officers and Servants) (Conditions of Services) Regulations, 1975." 3. Reference is made as a difference of opinion has occurred between the two Division Benches. First is judgment dated 08.11.2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.20206 of 2004; Keshav Deo Pandey Vs. Chairman & Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. & Others. By the said judgment, a Division Bench of this Court held that Regulation 351-A of Civil Services Regulations (CSR) are not applicable on the employees of the U.P. Power Corporation Limited (Power Corporation). However, in the present case, the Division Bench by its order dated 01.08.2016, finds that the same are applicable on the employees of the Power Corporation. 4. The issue is with regard to the applicability of Regulation 351-A of Civil Services Regulations, framed by the State Government, on the employees of the Corporation. It is not, whether the same is applicable due to the Regulation 2 of Regulations of 1975 or for any other reason. Therefore, the question of law is modified as follows:- "Whether, Regulation 351-A of Civil Services Regulations framed by the State Government is applicable on the employees of the U.P. Power Corporation?" 5. Learned counsels for the respondent have raised a preliminary objection, that, the judgment dated 08.11.2012 passed in Keshav Dev Pandey case (Supra) was challenged, by way of a Special Leave Petition No. 8568 of 2013 Chairman & M.D., U.P. Power Corporation & Ors. Vs. Keshav Deo Pandey, before the Supreme Court and the said Special Leave Petition was rejected by order dated 01.03.2013. Further a Review Petition No. 1431 of 2013 Chairman & Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Keshav Deo Pandey was filed and the same was also rejected by the Supreme Court by order dated 23.07.2013. Vs. Keshav Deo Pandey, before the Supreme Court and the said Special Leave Petition was rejected by order dated 01.03.2013. Further a Review Petition No. 1431 of 2013 Chairman & Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Keshav Deo Pandey was filed and the same was also rejected by the Supreme Court by order dated 23.07.2013. Submission is, that, in view thereof, the judgment dated 08.11.2012 of Keshav Deo Pandey case of this Court merged in the judgment dated 01.03.2013 of Supreme Court and, thus, the reference order itself is bad, the issue having been settled by the Supreme Court. 6. Before proceeding to consider the reference order on merits, it is appropriate to consider the aforesaid preliminary objection first. The Judgment in case of Keshav Deo Pandey (Supra) was challenged before the Supreme Court by U.P. Power Corporation. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the following order dated 01.03.2013:- "Heard senior learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the relevant material. We do not find any legal and valid ground for interference. The special leave petition is dismissed." 7. The review petition was dismissed by the following order dated 23.07.2013:- "Delay condoned. We have carefully gone through the review petition and the connected papers. We find no merit in the review petition and the same is accordingly dismissed." 8. It is clear from the proceedings before Supreme Court that the leave was not granted by the Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition itself was rejected. Therefore, the issue before this Court is, as to whether, in such circumstances, the same can be treated to be a judgment of the Supreme Court and would act as merger of the judgment of this Court in the judgment of Supreme Court or law settled by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has considered the said issue in number of cases. We feel that for our purposes suffice would be to refer to conclusions/principles settled on this issue in case of Kunhayammed and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Another reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359 . After considering the law on this issue, in paragraph 44 and 45, the Supreme Court sums up as follows:- "44. We feel that for our purposes suffice would be to refer to conclusions/principles settled on this issue in case of Kunhayammed and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Another reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359 . After considering the law on this issue, in paragraph 44 and 45, the Supreme Court sums up as follows:- "44. To sum up, our conclusions are: (i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against an order passed by a court, tribunal or any other authority before superior forum and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative and is capable of enforcement in the eye of law. (ii) The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution is divisible into two stages. The first stage is upto the disposal of prayer for special leave to file an appeal. The second stage commences if and when the leave to appeal is granted and the special leave petition is converted into an appeal. (iii) The doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited application. It will depend on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject-matter of challenge laid or capable of being laid shall be determinative of the applicability of merger. The superior jurisdiction should be capable of reversing, modifying or affirming the order put in issue before it. Under Article 136 of the Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree or order appealed against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties. (vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation. (vii) On an appeal having been preferred or a petition seeking leave to appeal having been converted into an appeal before the Supreme Court the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain a review petition is lost thereafter as provided by sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC. 45. Having thus made the law clear, the case at hand poses no problem for solution. The earlier order of the High Court was sought to be subjected to exercise of appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by the State of Kerala wherein it did not succeed. The prayer contained in the petition seeking leave to appeal to this Court was found devoid of any merits and hence dismissed. The order is a non-speaking and unreasoned order. All that can be spelled out is that the Court was not convinced of the need for exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The prayer contained in the petition seeking leave to appeal to this Court was found devoid of any merits and hence dismissed. The order is a non-speaking and unreasoned order. All that can be spelled out is that the Court was not convinced of the need for exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The order of the High Court dated 17-12-1982 did not merge in the order dated 18-7-1983 passed by this Court.................." 9. Thus, the law is well settled by the Supreme Court, that, mere rejection of the Special Leave Petition, as has occurred in the case of Keshav Deo Pandey (Supra), would not amount that the judgment dated 08.11.2012 of the High Court got merged in the order of the Supreme Court dated 01.03.2013, rejecting the Special Leave Petition or in order dated 23.07.2013, rejecting the review petition. Thus, the preliminary objection, raised by the respondent, is rejected. 10. Submission on merits of the case, of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that, in case of Keshav Deo Pandey (Supra), while considering the applicability of Regulation 351-A, the Division Bench quoted paragraph 28 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Power Corporation, which contained the stand of the Power Corporation, in paragraph 17 of the judgment. Paragraph 17 of the judgment reads:- "17. The respondents have filed counter affidavit of Shri Sudhir Kumar Shah, Deputy Secretary, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Shakti Bhavan, Lucknow in which it is stated in para 28 as follows:- "That the contents of paragraph no.35 and 36 of the writ petition are strongly denied. it is stated that the board order no.2820 dated 22.11.74, Service Conduct Rules 1956 and 351A of Civil Service Regulations were all adopted by the Corporation and the Corporation acted in accordance with the above mentioned rules and regulations. Therefore no infirmity in the impugned order." 11. After quoting the said paragraph of the counter affidavit and referring to Article 351-A of the CSR, in paragraph 19, the Division Bench found that respondents did not place on record the decision of the Board by which Article 351-A of the CSR was allegedly adopted. Paragraph-19 of the judgment reads:- "19. Therefore no infirmity in the impugned order." 11. After quoting the said paragraph of the counter affidavit and referring to Article 351-A of the CSR, in paragraph 19, the Division Bench found that respondents did not place on record the decision of the Board by which Article 351-A of the CSR was allegedly adopted. Paragraph-19 of the judgment reads:- "19. The respondents have not placed on record the decision of the Board, by which Art.351A of the CSR was alleged to be adopted for the purposes of continuing the disciplinary enquiry, after retirement or to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the retired employee within four years of the incident, with the permission of the employer and with the sanction of the Board. The Board's Circular dated 19th February, 1964, refers to the 72nd meeting held on 26th December, 1963, in which the Board decided in principle to adopt the U.P. Government Rules and Regulations viz. qualifications, control and appellate rules, Government Servant Conduct Rules, Traveling Allowance Rules; Medical Attendance Rules, and the Pensionary Rules as amended from time to time and accordingly directed that the Rules and Regulations shall apply mutis mutandis to all categories of officers, and staff of the Board other than those, who are governed by separate agreement or covenance. The U.P. State Electricity Board (Officers and Servants) (Conditions of Services) Regulation, 1975, were made after the issuance of the Circular of the Board dated February 19th, 1964. These Regulations of 1975, provide for Rules regarding the authority competent to remove, dismiss, all matters on conduct and discipline (including matters relating to punishment, constitution of committee) to enquire into the case and the appeal and representation to the Chairman of the Board. They, however, do not provide for applicability of the Rules stated to have been adopted by the Board on 26th December, 1963, nor do they specifically authorised the Board to continue with the departmental proceedings after the employee attained the age of superannuation and retires. The Regulations of 1975, also do not mention of any adoption or incorporation of the Classifications, Control, and Appeal rules, Government Servant Conduct Rules etc. The Regulations of 1975, also do not mention of any adoption or incorporation of the Classifications, Control, and Appeal rules, Government Servant Conduct Rules etc. We thus find that with the enforcement of the Regulations of 1975, w.e.f. October 18th, 1975 all the rules relating to conditions of service including discipline and appeal were consolidated and thus only these resolutions of the Board relating to the conditions of service, which are incorporated in the Regulations of 1975, were made applicable to the employees." 12. The reference order dated 01.08.2016, in the present case, refers to two provisions regarding adoption and applicability of Article 351-A of CSR. Relevant portion of the same is:- "Regulation 2 of Regulations 1975 has extended the provisions of the Rules/Regulations framed by the State Government to its employees to deal with the disciplinary matter of the employees of the petitioner's, whereas it appears that these rules were escaped from the notice of the Court while dealing with the matter. Therefore, this Court consider the other provisions of Regulations 1975 held that the first respondent matter shall be dealt-with only under the Regulations 1975. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.K. Kalia has also pointed out one Circular dated 9th February, 1995 issued by the U.P. State Electricity Board on the subject of grant of provisional pension under Article "351-A-A" and Article "919-A of the U.P. Civil Service Rules. A bare perusal of the U.P. Civil Service Rules shows that the Board had adopted the Civil Service Regulation framed by the State Government vide notification dated 19th January, 1983, hence by this Circular it has also adopted the Article 351-A-A and 919 -A and made it applicable over the retired officers and employees of the Board." 13. Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the corporation, while making his submissions, placed before this Court all the relevant rules, regulations and Board orders with regard to the controversy. Way back on 19.02.1964, the Board had issued an order number 265-E/SEB-13/1960. Relevant portion of which reads as:- "I am directed to invite a reference to G.O. No. 4 PEB/XXIII-PB-IEB/1958 dated March 30, 1959 laying down the terms and conditions for the transfer of staff from the then Electricity Deptt. Way back on 19.02.1964, the Board had issued an order number 265-E/SEB-13/1960. Relevant portion of which reads as:- "I am directed to invite a reference to G.O. No. 4 PEB/XXIII-PB-IEB/1958 dated March 30, 1959 laying down the terms and conditions for the transfer of staff from the then Electricity Deptt. and the K.E.S.A. to the Board consequent upon its formation on Ist April, 1959 and to say that in actual practice the Board has been following, as far as practicable, the same rules and regulations in the matter of regulating the Service Conditions of its own employees as were applicable to the State Govt. Servants without formally adopting the same. At the 72nd meeting held in Dec. 26, 1963, the Board has, however, decided in principle to adopt the U.P. Govt. Rules and Regulations viz. the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, Govt. Servants' Conduct Rules, Traveling Allowance Rules, Medical Attendance Rules and the Pensionary rules as amended from time to time. Accordingly Rules and Regulations shall apply mutatis mutandis to all categories of officers and staff of the Board, other than those who are governed by separate agreements or covenants. (emphasis added)" 14. Learned counsel for petitioner also placed before this Court the Board Resolution dated 26.12.1963, wherein also, under Agenda No.72(2), General Conditions of Service of the Board's Employees, the Board considered the matter. The said resolution is as follows:- "It was decided in principle that the U.P. Government rules and regulations viz., the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, Government Servants' Conduct Rules, T.A. Rules, Medical Attendance Rules and the pensionary Rules as amended from time to time be adopted by the Board and these should apply mutatis mutandis to all categories of officers and staff of the Board other than those who are governed by separate agreements of covenants. As regards the applicability of these rules to employees coming under the category of "industrial workers", the matter may be examined in detail by the Chief Engineer (Hydel) and Secretary in consultation with the Deputy Secretary concerned of the Labour Department. The result of the examination may be brought to the notice of the Board, so that a final decision may be created immediately for the Board's employees and an annual contribution at the rate of 10 percent of the total establishment bill excluding the excluded employees may be made to the fund. The result of the examination may be brought to the notice of the Board, so that a final decision may be created immediately for the Board's employees and an annual contribution at the rate of 10 percent of the total establishment bill excluding the excluded employees may be made to the fund. It was further decided that that a noncontributory provident fund be created by the Board for the benefit of their employees. (Emphasis added) 15. Submission is that since the year 1963, the Board had adopted the Civil Services Regulations, as amended from time to time and the same were applicable on the employees of the Board. The pension to Board employees was being given as per the CSR only. In the year 1975, the Board came out with U.P. State Electricity Board (Officers and Servants) (Conditions of Service), Regulations, 1975 (Regulations of 1975). The said regulations were framed in exercise of power conferred under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Emphasis is made to Regulation 2 of Regulations of 1975 which reads as follows:- "2. All matters relating to conduct and discipline (including matters relating to punishment) and to termination, reversion and compulsory retirement of persons appointed: (a) to the Board, (b) Government servants who were originally employed under the State Government and after resignation were absorbed in the service of the Board in pursuance of State Government order No.3670-E/71-XXIII-BB, dated July 1, 1971, the Board may initiate or recommence any disciplinary proceedings in respect of their acts and omissions during the period when they were employed under the State Government except in cases where disciplinary proceedings were finally concluded on merits while they were so employed under the Government. (c) Such servants of the Board as are workman employed in any industrial establishment under the control of the Board, notwithstanding any thing contained in any other law for the time being in force; shall be regulated mutatis mutandis and subject to any other regulation for the time being inforce (including Regulations 1-A and above and 3, 4 and 6 below) by rules and order for the time being infoce and applicable to corresponding categories of Government Servants under the Rule making control of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh with the substitution of reference in such rules to the Governor or the State Government by reference to the Board." 16. Learned counsel for petitioner relies upon the same and submits that while considering the Keshav Deo Pandey case, the Bench, though referred to Regulations of 1975, but failed to refer to Regulation 2 of the aforesaid Regulations and under the Regulation 2 also, the Civil Services Regulation 351-A stands adopted and applicable on the employees. He further relied upon the Office Memorandum No.-12803-SA/SEB-VII/77 dated 03.01.1978, issued by the Board. By the said Office Memorandum also the Board again detailed the various rules and regulations of the State Government which were adopted by it from time to time. The relevant portion of the said Office Memorandum dated 03.01.1978 is:- "No.-12803-SA/SEB-VII/77 Dated-January 3, 1978 OFFICE MEMORANDUM. Subject: Basis of Financial and Administrative functioning of the Board. The Board has adopted various rules and regulations of the State Government as listed below, for the financial and administrative working of the Board from time to time: Name of the Code/Govt. Manual Applicable relating to 1. FHB Vol. II Pay, leave, joining time etc. and other establishment matters. 2. FHB Vol. III T.A. Rules, 3. FHB Vol. V Part I Establishment Bills 4. FHB Vol. VI PWD system of Accounts works and stocks. 5. Civil service Regulation read with U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules 1961 and New, Family Pension Scheme, 1965 Rules regarding Retirement. 6. Manual or orders Electricity Department. Manual of Government Rules concerning erstwhile Electricity Department. 7. Budget Manual Budget 8. G.P. Fund Rules These are mutatis mutandis applicable 9. Classification control & Special Rules. and all the amendments have been adopted by the Board. 10. Book of forms --------------------------------------------------------(emphasis added)" 17. On 9.02.1995, the Board issued another order bearing la[;k% 520&isU'ku&31@jk0fo0i0@95@v¿34Àih@94 fnukad% Qjojh 9] 1995^^ By the said order, the Board specifically adopted the newly amended Article 351-A-A and Article 919-A of the Civil Services Regulations. Classification control & Special Rules. and all the amendments have been adopted by the Board. 10. Book of forms --------------------------------------------------------(emphasis added)" 17. On 9.02.1995, the Board issued another order bearing la[;k% 520&isU'ku&31@jk0fo0i0@95@v¿34Àih@94 fnukad% Qjojh 9] 1995^^ By the said order, the Board specifically adopted the newly amended Article 351-A-A and Article 919-A of the Civil Services Regulations. The aforesaid Board order dated 09.02.1995 is quoted below:- mRRkj izns'k jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn ß'kfDr Hkouß 14&v'kksd ekxZ y[kuÅ&226001 la[;k% 520&isU'ku&31@jk0fo0i0@95@v¿34Àih@94 fnukad% Qjojh 9] 1995 lEkLr eq[; vfHk;UrkA Lrj&1@2A leLr egk izcU/kd@ifj;kstu izcU/kd v/;{k] fo|qr lsok vk;ksx@tkap lfefr fu;a=d] ys[kk@laijh{kk@fuf/k@okf.kT; jktLo eq[; ys[kkf/kdkjh@funs'kd] vkUrfjd laijh{kk mRRkj izns'k jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn~ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& fo"k;% mRRkj izns'k flfoy lfoZl fu;ekoyh ds ;Fkk la'kksf/kr vUkqPNsn ß351&d&dß vkSj vuqPNsn ß919&dß ds v/khu vfUre isU'ku dh Lohd`fr egksn;] mi;ZqDRk fo"k;d foRRkA lkEkkU;A vquHkkx&mRRkj izns'k 'kklu dh foKfIr la[;k lk&3&79@nl&909&79 fnukad 19 tuojh 1983 dh izfrfyfi vkidks Hkstrs gq, eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd ifj"kn us mRRkj izns'k 'kklu dh mi;ZqDr foKfIr }kjk mRRkj izns'k flfoy lfoZl fu;ekoyh esa c<+k;s x;s u;s vuqPNsn 351&d&d vkSj 919 d lkekU; :i ls ifj"kn ds lsok fuo`Rk gksus okys vf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa deZpkfj;ksa ds ekeyksa esa ykxw djus gsrq lg"kZ vauhd`r fufgr dj fy;k gSA d`i;k mi;ZqDr vkns'kksa ls vius v/khuLFk lHkh lacaf/kr vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dks Hkh voxr djk fn;k tk;A layXud% ;FkkijksDr Hkonh;] gLrk{kj ¿vks0 ih0 flUgkÀ vij lfpo&r`rh;^^ 18. On 03.02.2000 (Board by now was taken over by the U.P. Power Corporation), the Corporation issued another Office Memorandum bearing la0&4&fofue&23@ih0lh0,y0@2000&1&jsxqys'ku&2000 fnukad% Qjojh 03] 2000 detailing the rules, regulations and the existing service conditions of the employees of the Board, which continue to apply on there becoming employees of the Corporation. On 03.02.2000 (Board by now was taken over by the U.P. Power Corporation), the Corporation issued another Office Memorandum bearing la0&4&fofue&23@ih0lh0,y0@2000&1&jsxqys'ku&2000 fnukad% Qjojh 03] 2000 detailing the rules, regulations and the existing service conditions of the employees of the Board, which continue to apply on there becoming employees of the Corporation. Relevant portion of the said Office Memorandum of the Corporation dated 03.02.2000 is reads:- ^^mRRkj izns'k ikoj dkiksZjs'ku] fyfeVsM ß'kfDr Hkouß] 14& v'kksd ekxZ y[kuÅ la0&4&fofue&23@ih0lh0,y0@2000&1&jsxqys'ku&2000 fnukad % Qjojh 3] 2000 dk;kZy; Kki m0iz0 'kklu }kjk fnukad 7-7-99 dks vf/klwfpr m0iz0 fo|qr lq/kkj vf/kfu;e 1997 dh /kkjk 1 dh mi/kkjk ¼3½ ds v/khu 14-1-2000 ls m0iz0 'kklu] ÅTkkZ foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk la[;k&148&ih&1@2000 fnukad 14-1-2000 ls m0 iz0 fo|qr lq/kkj vUrj.k Ldhe ykxw gks x;h gSA bl vUrj.k Ldhe dks /kkjk 6¼10½ esa fuEufyf[kr izkfo/kku fd;k x;k gS& ?Subject to the provisions of the Act and the Scheme, The transferee shall frame regulations governing the conditions of service of personal transferred to the transferee under this scheme and till such time, the existing service conditions of the Board shall mutatis mutandis apply.? mDr izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqikyu esa ;g vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd m0 iz0 ikoj dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk vius vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa ds lsok 'krsZ lEcU/kh ekeyksa ds fuLrkj.k ds lEcU/k esa fofu;e cuk;s tkus rd m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn }kjk vius vf/kdkfj;ksa@dEkZpkfj;ksa ds lsok lEcU/kh ekeyksa ds fuLrkj.k gsrq iwoZ esa cuk;s x;s fuEufyf[kr fofu;e v|ru la'kksf/kr ,oa rn~lEcU/kh tkjh iz'kklfud vkns'k dkiksZjs'ku ds vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa ds lsok lEcU/kh ekeyksa ds fuLrkj.k gsrq vko';d ifjorZuks lfgr (mutatis mutandis) mu ij ykxw ekus tk;saxs& 1- m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn~] vfHk;Urk lsok fofu;ekoyh&1970 2- m0 iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn~] lgk;d vfHk;Urk ¼tuin½ lsok fofu;ekoyh&1970 3- m0 iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn voj vfHk;Urk lsok fofu;ekoyh&1972 4- m0 iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn jlk;UkK lsok fofu;ekoyh&1970 5- m0 iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn fyfidh; vf/k"Bku A eq[; vfHk;ark ds dk;kZy; ,oa vU; v/khUkLFk dk;kZy; fofu;ekoyh&1970 6- m0 iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn~ ys[kkf/kdkjh lsok fofu;ekoyh&1984 7- m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn~ vfHk;arkvksa dh ,dhdj.k ,oa T;s"Brk lsok fofu;ekoyh&1976 8- m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn~ vf/kdkfj;ksa ,ao dEkZpkfj;ksa dh lsok dh 'krsZ fofu;e&1975 9- m0 iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn yksd lsok vf/kdj.k fofu;eA 10- m0 iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn deZpkfj;ksa ,oa vf/kdkfj;ksa dh lsokfuo`fRr fofu;e&1975 11- m0 iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn eq[;ky; r`rh; ,oa prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjhA vuq'kklukRed 'kfDr;ksa dk izfrfu/k;uA fofu;e&1987 12- m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"knA ifj"kn ds lsodksa dk 'kklu o lkoZtfud midzeksa esa lafofy;uA fofu;e&1987 13- VªkUlQj vkQ oksbZl bEIykbZ vku Qkjsu lfoZl jsxqys'ku 14- isesaV vkQ lfCllVsUl ,ykmUl Vw cksMZ bEiykbZ vku lLisa'ku jsxqys'ku 15- odkyrukek vfHkopu] 'kiFk ,oa izfrgLRkk{kj ;k lR;kiu rFkk ifj"kn }kjk ;k ifj"kn ds fo:} fof/kd eqdnesa ds nk;j djus ds lEcU/k esa vko';d dk;Zokgh ,oa vkns'k fuxZr djus ds lEcU/k esa fofu;e 16- m0 iz0 'kkldh; deZpkjh vkpj.k lsok fu;ekoyh&1956A ifj"kn }kjk vaxhd`r 17- m0 iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn bEIykbtA VªkalQj jsxqys'kUlA 1980 18- m0 iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"knA Hkwfe v/;kfIr ls izHkkfor ifjokj ds lnL; dh fu;qfDr fofu;e&1937 19- fMVjfeus'ku vkQ MsV vkQ oFkZ :Yl&1974 20-m0 iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn lsok:y esa e`r ifj"knh; lsodksa ds vkfJrksa dh HkrhZ fu;ekoyh&1975 21-lh0lh0, :Yl A ,MksIVsM okb n cksMZA 22- VSªofayax ,ykmUl :Yl ,.M :Yl fjysfVax Vw esfMdy QsflfyVht ,Mfelsafcy Vq n oksbZl bEiykbt 23- isa'kujh :Yl A ,MksIVsM ckbZ n cksMZA 24- th0ih0 :Yl A ,MksIVsM ckbZ n cksMZA 25- m0iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn eq[;ky; fyfidh; deZpkjh lsok fofu;ekoyh&1969 26- m0 iz0 fo|qr ifj"kn ifjpkydh; lsok fofu;ekoyh&1995 27- m0 iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"knA ifj"kn ds deZpkfj;ks dk LFkk;hdj.k fofu;e&1995 28- m0 iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn T;s"Brk fofu;ekoyh&1998&91 29- m0 iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh lsok fofu;ekoyh&1998 30- m0 iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn dkfeZd vf/kdkjh lsok fofuekoyh&1995 31- m0 iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn esa p;u o"kZ fu/kkZj.k fofu;ekoyh&1998 32- m0 iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn fpfdRlkf/kdkjh lsok fofu;ekoyh&1994 33- m0 iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn ioZrh; milaoXkZ fofu;eokyh&1994 34- m0 iz0 jkT; fo|qr ifj"kn f'k{kd lsok fofu;ekoyh&1995 35- n bysfDVªflVh lfoZl dfe'kuA fo|qr lsok vk;ksxA m0 iz0 LVsV bysfDVªflVh cksMZA izkslhtj ,.M dUMsDV vkQ fctusl jsxqys'ku&1970 36- n bysfDVªflVh lfoZl dfe'kuA fo|qr lsok vk;ksx m0iz0 LVsV bysfDVªflVh cksMZA fyfeVs'ku vkQ QaD'ku jsxqys'ku&1978 37- n bysfDVªflVh lfoZl dfe'ku A fo|qr lsok vk;ksx m0 iz0 LVsV bysfDVªflVh cksMZ dafM'ku vkQ lfoZl jsxqys'ku& 1978 mDRk vkns'k m0 iz0 ikoj dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds xBu dh frfFk ls ykxw gksaxsA v/;{k ,oa izcU/k funs'kd^^ 19. By memorandum dated 29.01.2014 Corporation announced that the Board of Directors of the Corporation in its' meeting no. 103(18)/2013 held on 27.12.2013 have taken the following decision:- ^^103¼18½@2013% ^^funs'kd e.My }kjk funsZf'kr fd;k x;k fd dkjiksjs'ku ds dk;kZy; Kki la0&4&fofue&23@ih0lh0,y0@2000&1&jsXqys'ku&2000 fnukad 03&02&2000 ds vuqØe esa ;g Li"V dj fn;k tk;s fd m0iz0 fo|qr lq/kkj vUrj.k Ldhe dh /kkjk&6¼10½ ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj bl dk;kZy; Kkki esa bafxr fofHkUu fofu;ekofy;ksa ds vfrfjDr iwoZorhZ ifj"kn rFkk 'kklu dh vU; fofu;ekofy;ka ;Fkk ¼1½ m0iz0 ljdkjh lsod ¼vuq'kklu ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh&1999 ¼2½ lh0,l0vkj0 dk vuqPNsn&351, ¼3½ ,Q0,p0ch0 ds lHkh okY;qe ,oa ¼4½ 'kklu }kjk rRle; iz[;kfir ,oa izHkkoh vU; fofu;ekofy;ka Hkh bl dk;kZy; Kki la0&4&fofue&23@ih0lh0,y0@2000&1&jsXqys'ku&2000 fnukad 03&02&2000 ls (Mutatis Mutandis) ykxw] vkofjr ,oa izHkkoh ekuh tk;sxha**A 20. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid notifications/orders, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.K. Kalia submits that continuously, the Board/Corporation has adopted and applied the Civil Services Regulations upon the employees of the Board including Regulation 351-A of the same. He further submits that in case of Keshav Deo Pandey (Supra), all these documents were not placed before the Court, a fact duly noted by the said Division Bench in paragraph-19 of the said judgment. Thus, the judgment of the Division Bench in Keshav Deo Pandey case (Supra) does not settle the law finally, with regard to applicability of the Civil Services Regulations, including Regulations 351-A thereof. Further, the stand of the Corporation is that the Board/Corporation has throughout applied CSR Rules, as modified from time to time, on all the employees of the Board. Now, after their being applicable for such a long period, it would be most improper to hold that the same are not applicable on the employees. 21. Learned counsels for the respondent submit that the judgment of this Court in case of Keshav Deo Pandey (Supra) finally concludes, after hearing the counsel for the U.P. Power Corporation also, that Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations is not applicable on the employees of the Board. There is no reason to interfere with the same. Their further submission is that Regulations of 1975 are regarding conduct and discipline of the employees and not regarding pensionary benefits, hence, the same will have no impact with regard to the pensionary benefits provided to the employees. 22. There is no reason to interfere with the same. Their further submission is that Regulations of 1975 are regarding conduct and discipline of the employees and not regarding pensionary benefits, hence, the same will have no impact with regard to the pensionary benefits provided to the employees. 22. So far as Regulations of 1975 are concerned, the same nowhere states that they supersede or override either any of the earlier rules/regulations of the Board/Corporation or of the State Government. On the contrary, Regulation 2 applies, on all the employees of the Board/corporation, mutatis mutandis, rules of the State Government. The term mutatis mutandis came for consideration before the Supreme Court in a similar case of Prahlad Sharma Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2004) 4 SCC page 113. In paragraph 11, the Supreme Court said:- "The expression "mutatis mutandis" itself implies applicability of any provision with necessary changes in the points of detail. The rules which are adopted, as has been done in the present case, make the principles embodied in the rules applicable and not the details pertaining to particular authority or things of that nature. In the present case, we find that the High Court has found that the U.P. Rules of 1999 have been adopted mutatis mutandis. Therefore, in our view, the revisional power which has been vested in the State Government in respect of the employees of the State may be exercisable by an authority parallel or corresponding thereto in the Corporation in regard to employees of the Corporation" Thus, all the rules of the State Government continued to apply after coming into force of Regulations of 1975 also. Even otherwise, throughout, the Board/Corporation has adopted all the service rules, whether pensionary or discipline and conduct, with regard to the employees of the State Government and applied them on the employees of the Board/Corporation. 23. Even otherwise, the other notification and office memorandum quoted above, clearly show that the Civil Services Regulations were duly adopted by the Board and declaration to that effect was made by it from time to time. The resolution of the Board dated 26.12.1963 adopts pensionary rules as amended from time to time of the State Government and Board by order dated 19.02.1964 declares the same. Regulation of 1975, by Regulation 2, again adopts the service conditions of the State Government employees, including with regard to their conduct and discipline. The resolution of the Board dated 26.12.1963 adopts pensionary rules as amended from time to time of the State Government and Board by order dated 19.02.1964 declares the same. Regulation of 1975, by Regulation 2, again adopts the service conditions of the State Government employees, including with regard to their conduct and discipline. The Board Memorandum dated 03.01.1978 again declares the list of rules and regulations of the State Government adopted by the Board and at serial no.5 of the said rules notes Civil Services Regulations read with U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules 1961 and New Family Pension Scheme 1965, explaining them, as Regulations regarding retirement. Again by notification dated 9.02.1995, it specifically adopts Regulation 351-A-A and 191-A, as amended with regard to interim pension. Again by office memorandum dated 03.02.2000, the Power Corporation, immediately on coming into force issued a departmental order, detailing the rules and regulations which were applicable on the employees of the Board and are now made applicable as per the provisions of the Scheme on employees of corporation. In the said list also at serial no.23, pensionary rules (adopted by the Board) is noted. The Director of Board of Directors of the Corporation has again issued an office memorandum on 29.01.2014, giving reference to the Board of Directors' meeting held on 27.12.2013, declaring that the same are also applicable on the employees of the Board/Corporation. Thus, all the above documents clearly establishes that, from time to time, the Board/Corporation, has adopted as well as declared and applied the CSR Rules including Regulation 351-A upon its employees, throughout. 24. There is another aspect of the matter. The pension of the employees is payable under the Civil Services Regulations only. Regulation-1, part-I of Chapter-I of Civil Services Regulations reads as follows:- "1. (a) These regulations are intended to define the conditions under which pension is earned by service in the Civil Department and in what manner it is related." 25. It was specifically put to the learned counsels for respondent that if the Civil Services Regulations are not adopted and made applicable on the employees of the Board/Corporation, then, under which provision they would be entitled to pensionary benefits. Counsels for the respondent could not place before this Court any other scheme under which employees of the Board/Corporation would be entitled to pensionary benefits. Counsels for the respondent could not place before this Court any other scheme under which employees of the Board/Corporation would be entitled to pensionary benefits. He could not dispute that the pensionary benefits are being given to the employees under the Civil Services Regulations only. The stand of the respondents, therefore, becomes self contradictory. On one hand they are admitting the applicability of the Civil Services Regulations while on the other hand, they are disputing its adoption by the Board. Hence, there is no force in the stand taken by the respondents. The question is, thus, answered as follows:- "Regulation 351-A of Civil Services Regulations framed by the State Government are applicable to the employees of the U.P. Power Corporation." 26. Let, the petitions be placed before the appropriate Court for further proceedings.