Ravi Shankar Khare vs Managing Director
2021 Latest Caselaw 8034 MP

                                    1




              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

                       WP No. 23641 of 2021
          (RAVI SHANKAR KHARE Vs MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS)



4
Jabalpur, Dated : 1-12-2021
      Shri Riyaz Mohammad, counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri Arpan Pawar, counsel for the respondent No.1.

With the consent of the parties the matter is finally heard. The present petition is being filed being aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2021 passed by the respondent No.3 in pursuance to the resolution passed by the Board of Directors in its 122 nd meeting, the order of sending the petitioner for a period of 6 months training is being passed. It is pointed out that the petitioner is working under the N.H.D.C (in short Narmada Hydroelectric Development Corporation) Limited as an Assistant Manager (Electrical) and he has recently joined the headquarter at Bhopal on 28.6.2021 and before joining he met with an accident and was admitted in Apollo Hospital Indore and treatment was undertaken of BFH Bhopal Hospital, Indore because of his Right Ligament teared. It is submitted that the N.H.D.C is a Public Sector Enterprise and N.H.P.C. Ltd. is a different Hydro Electric Institution whereabouts there was no demand raised by NHPC for sending the employees for training to the Corporation. As per the NHPC training policy, it provides training to its own employees and there is no provisions for training and providing training to an

employee of an other Corporation. As per the provisions, maximum two weeks training could be provided by NHPC. They does not provide training for a longer period. There is no agreement or enter into between the petitioner's Corporation i.e. N.H.D.C. and N.H.P.C. Therefore, sending the petitioner for training in terms of the resolution is illegal, therefore, the petition has been filed. Along with the writ petition, certain additional documents has been filed to point out the fact that there is no arrangement for training to an employees above then 10 years and the documents which has been provided by N.H.P.C. clearly shows that there is no training program for long term training of 6 months.

Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the prayer by filing a detailed reply. It is pointed out that, N.H.D.C. Limited is a Central Government Public Enterprises with 51% share holding of NHPC Ltd. (GoI undertaking) and 49% of GoMP. Thus, N.H.P.C. is the holding Company of N.H.D.C. Limited. The Board of Directors of N.H.D.C. which is a highest decision making body in its 122nd meeting held on 1.6.2020 resolved that the NHDC executives to be sent for training to NHPC Projects Power Station to gain experience for latest Construction and Operation & Maintenance Techniques etc. to keep them updated with the latest development and Hydro Power Sector. It is pointed out that it is not for the first time they are sending their executives for training but on previous occasion also the executives of the respondents were send for training to N.H.P.C. Power Station to gain experiences. He has brought to the notice of this Court the resolution taken on 1.6.2020 wherein Clause 10 provides as under:-

Clause 10:- NHDC executives be posted to NHPC Projects/Power Stations to gain experience of latest Constrution and Operation & Maintenance Techniques etc. to keep them abreast with latest developments in these areas.

The document dated 29.7.2015 is also filed to demonstrate that their employees are regularly sent on training. It is further pointed out that the Board of Director are taken a decision that petitioner along with 4 other executives were sent for training to in 2 N.H.P.C. Power Stations for 3-3 months each and the aforesaid decision was approved by respondent No.1 on 13.10.2021 who was authorised by the same Board of Director Resolution. It is pointed out that, out of 5 executives, 4 have already joined the training program and are undergoing the training and the petitioner has not complied with the order and has chosen to file the present writ petition. It is further pointed out that petitioner joining at N.H.D.C is mentioned as 28.6.2021, which is factually incorrect. He was absorbed in the NHPC on 27.3.2006 and on 28.6.2021 he has joined at Bhopal Office after his transferred from Onkareshwar Power Station of NHDC. The petitioner is only directed to be send for training to NHPC Power Station for a period of 6 months and after completion of the training period he will be called back in department itself. The aforesaid decision will not change any service conditions of the petitioner. On the contrary, the petitioner will be treated as on tour and will be pay and allowances by N.H.D.C. The petitioner could not point out any of the change in the terms and conditions of his service by the impugned order. It is further pointed out that identical issue was considered in W.P. No.12679/2015 in the case of T.M. Tripathi Vs. Narmada Hydroelectric Development

Corporation wherein this Court considering the fact and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the executives are only sent for training, therefore, there is no change in the service condition and no prejudice will be caused. On the contrary they will be updating themselves as per the latest Hydroelectric projects. The writ petition was dismissed.

In such circumstances, the order impugned is rightly being passed. The petitioner is required to join the training in terms of impugned order with immediate effect as the similarly situated employees has already joined the training. For this the petitioner has already been intimated by way of notice and reminder. There is no merit in the petition, therefore, he prays for dismissal of the same.

Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in the case of T.M. Tripathi (supra), and has argued that there is a mentioning of an order dated 29.7.2015 in the order of T.M. Tripathi (supra) wherein there is a mention of an agreement entered into between the N.H.P.C and N.H.D.C. But there is no such agreement or settlement produced in the present case, therefore, the decision which has been taken by the Board of Director is per se illegal.

Counsel for the respondent has further drawn attention of this Court to the clarification which is sworn from the Executive Director who is the highest level of the Authority in the training and HRD of NHPC Limited dated 23.11.2021 wherein it is clarified the natures, scope and utility of the training program. It was pointed out that although they are not having the executives but the training will be imparted by the Senior Level Officers having experience in

construction activities and running Power Stations. The job training shall give executives skills and enhanced the competency and acquaint them with system operating in N.H.P.C. for implementing the same in N.H.D.C. Thus, the order impugned is rightly being passed. The same does not call for any interference in the present writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the record, it is not disputed that N.H.D.C. is a Central Government Public Enterprises (CPSE), with 51% share holding of NHPC Ltd. (GoI undertaking) and 49% of GoMP. Thus, N.H.P.C. is a holding company of NHDC Ltd. The Board of Directors are the highest authorities to take a decision and they have resolved on 1.6.2020 in its 122nd meeting to send their executives for training and to gain the experience with the latest Constructions and Operation & Maintenance Techniques etc. to keep them updated with the latest development in the areas. After going through the reply filed by the respondent authorities, it is apparently clear that it is for a period of 6 months only they are required to be send for training and thereafter they will be coming back to their respective department. The question was considered by this Court in the case of T.M. Tripathi (supra) wherein it is held as under:-

Para 8:- In context of the aforesaid, if the matter is decided at the highest level by the respondents to select the certain eligible persons to get exposure and experience of working in construction/erection work, it cannot be said that such an action is taken in violation of any service condition applicable to the petitioners. At the best, if the petitioners are sent on different stations or different places for the purpose of achieving certain targets of the joint venture, the petitioners can ask for an incentive and nothing more. Even otherwise, it is not a

permanent transfer of the services of the petitioners from one Corporation to another. It is nothing but putting them in the folds of other Corporation for the time being and that too for a period of six months only. There is no effect on the service seniority or the service privileges which the petitioners are getting in their parent Corporation and, therefore, such an act of the respondents, more particularly of respondent No.1, taken especially in the circumstances of achieving the target of joint venture in terms of the MOU, cannot be said to be derogatory of any 9 service condition of the petitioners. In fact this was not the issue raised before this Court in the case of Mohinder Kumar Sharma (supra) nor the same was tested in the aforesaid circumstances. The law laid down by this Court was in respect of an order of transfer whereas here is the case where no transfer is ordered, rather it is assignment of work for the purpose of training to a limited period. There is no severance of relationship of master and servant between the petitioners and the respondent No.1 and, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court the law laid down in the case of Mohinder Kumar Sharma would not be attracted at all.

Para 10:- The aforesaid submissions carry some weight. In fact, looking to the nature of the order issued in respect of the petitioners, there was no occasion on their part to challenge the same before this Court in this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is made clear that in terms of the statement made in the return and in terms of the statement made across the bar on the strength of the instructions received by the learned counsel for the respondents, soon after the completion of the period of posting the petitioners would be taken back 10 in their respective posting in accordance to their entitlement by the parent Corporation.

From perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the Court has considered the aspect. There was no no occasion to the petitioner to

challenge the same before this Court in the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it is for the benefits of the executives himself to be updated. It is not a permanent posting rather it is only a training for 6 months which is to be provided by the experts and experienced officials. It is further seen that out of 5 persons, 4 have already joined and are undergoing the training except the petitioner. It is not a case that the petitioner has been permanently transferred to a different place. Rather he is directed to be undergo a training for a period of 6 months in the terms of the resolution taken in 122 nd meeting by the Board of Director.

No illegality is seen in the impugned order. The order is just and proper does not call for any interference in the present petition.

Petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE irfan

Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2021.12.03 17:34:20 +05'30'