All Orissa Electrical Workers Union Vs. State of Orissa & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No.12717 of 1996
(From the Judgment and Order dated 21.03.96 of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Cuttak in O.A.No.1087 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 21.03.96 of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Cuttak in O.A.No.1087 of 1996)
Petitioner: All Orissa Electrical Workers Union
Respondent: State of Orissa & Ors.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No.12717 of 1996
(From the Judgment and Order dated 21.03.96 of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Cuttak in O.A.No.1087 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 21.03.96 of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Cuttak in O.A.No.1087 of 1996)
Judges: K.RAMASWAMY & G.B.PATTANAIK, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 20, 1996
Appearances:
Mrs. Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate, Mr. Bharat Sangal, and Ms. Anita Chinoy, Advocates with her for the Petitioners.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Service Rule 71(a)
Superannuation at age 60 for class IV employees but at age 58 for class III employees, though shifted or unshifted – Held categorization in Class IV upto 60, and in Class III up to 58 – Appellant not right in its submission – judgment in Mohanty’s case (JT 1995 (2) SC 6) does not require re consideration – Special leave petition dismissed.
Service Rule 71(a)
Superannuation at age 60 for class IV employees but at age 58 for class III employees, though shifted or unshifted – Held categorization in Class IV upto 60, and in Class III up to 58 – Appellant not right in its submission – judgment in Mohanty’s case (JT 1995 (2) SC 6) does not require re consideration – Special leave petition dismissed.
Held:
We do not think that the learned counsel is right in her submission. We have considered the entire service rules operating in the State of Orissa and also various instructions issued by the Government from time to time together with the note to Rule 71(a) of the Rules. We have categorised various persons who are eligible to superannuation of the age of 60 years and such of those employees who had been fitted into class III and upwards, though they are skilled or highly skilled, they are not entitled to the benefit f 60 years for superannuation. They required to entire on attaining the age of 58 years while the Class IV employees, though skilled, semi-skilled or highly skilled alone are entitled to the benefit of superannuation of 60 years. In that view, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment in Mohanty’s case does not require reconsideration.(Para 2)
Cases Reffered:
1. State of Orissa v. Arnab Kumar Dutta (JT 1996 (2) SC 516)
2. State of Orissa v. Adwant Charan Mohanty & Ors. JT 1995 (2) SC 6 = 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 470.
2. State of Orissa v. Adwant Charan Mohanty & Ors. JT 1995 (2) SC 6 = 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 470.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Smt. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in this petition, has argued on 2.8.1996 before the Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M.Punchhi and K.Venkataswami, JJ, and the learned Judges have referred the matter for reconsideration of the earlier decision by the Bench of which Hon’ble Sri Hansaria, J. was a member. Consequently, it was posted on August 5, 1996 before the Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice G.N. Ray and Hon’ble Justice Hansaria who have referred the matter again to us reconsideration of the judgment rendered in State of Orissa v. Adwant Charan Mohanty & Ors. JT 1995 (2) SC 6. We thought that there was a conflict between the judgment in State of Orissa v. Arnab Kumar Dutta JT 1996 (2) SC 516 and the judgment in Mohanty’s case. After going through the two judgments, we find that there is no conflict of the views. On the other hand, in A.K.Dutta’s case, the Bench has followed the decision in Mohanty’s case.
2. Smt. Indira Jaising has contended that the Government have different classes of the persons, namely, electrician, plumber, mastry, fitters Grade II, roller mechanic, mechanic, wireman, etc. … as skilled workmen entitled to the benefit of 60 years and that the judgment in Mohanty’s case requires consideration. We do not think that the learned counsel is right in her submission. We have considered the entire service rules operating in the State of Orissa and also various instructions issued by the Government from time to time together with the note to Rule 71(a) of the Rules. We have categorised various persons who are eligible to superannuation of the age of 60 years and such of those employees who had been fitted into class III and upwards, though they are skilled or highly skilled, they are not entitled to the benefit of 60 years for superannuation. They required to retire on attaining the age of 58 years while the Class IV employees, though skilled, semi-skilled or highly skilled alone are entitled to the benefit of superannuation of 60 years. In that view, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment in Mohanty’s case does not require reconsideration.
3. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
1. Smt. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in this petition, has argued on 2.8.1996 before the Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M.Punchhi and K.Venkataswami, JJ, and the learned Judges have referred the matter for reconsideration of the earlier decision by the Bench of which Hon’ble Sri Hansaria, J. was a member. Consequently, it was posted on August 5, 1996 before the Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice G.N. Ray and Hon’ble Justice Hansaria who have referred the matter again to us reconsideration of the judgment rendered in State of Orissa v. Adwant Charan Mohanty & Ors. JT 1995 (2) SC 6. We thought that there was a conflict between the judgment in State of Orissa v. Arnab Kumar Dutta JT 1996 (2) SC 516 and the judgment in Mohanty’s case. After going through the two judgments, we find that there is no conflict of the views. On the other hand, in A.K.Dutta’s case, the Bench has followed the decision in Mohanty’s case.
2. Smt. Indira Jaising has contended that the Government have different classes of the persons, namely, electrician, plumber, mastry, fitters Grade II, roller mechanic, mechanic, wireman, etc. … as skilled workmen entitled to the benefit of 60 years and that the judgment in Mohanty’s case requires consideration. We do not think that the learned counsel is right in her submission. We have considered the entire service rules operating in the State of Orissa and also various instructions issued by the Government from time to time together with the note to Rule 71(a) of the Rules. We have categorised various persons who are eligible to superannuation of the age of 60 years and such of those employees who had been fitted into class III and upwards, though they are skilled or highly skilled, they are not entitled to the benefit of 60 years for superannuation. They required to retire on attaining the age of 58 years while the Class IV employees, though skilled, semi-skilled or highly skilled alone are entitled to the benefit of superannuation of 60 years. In that view, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment in Mohanty’s case does not require reconsideration.
3. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
