Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose out of a service law dispute regarding the correct age of retirement for a government employee who had originally been employed in a workcharged establishment but was later absorbed into the regular government establishment. The respondent had joined service on 16 November 1961 as a mason in the workcharged establishment of the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Bhubaneswar. On 17 February 1978 he was brought over to the regular establishment, thereby becoming a government employee. He was due to retire on 30 September 1994 upon attaining 58 years of age. Aggrieved by this, he filed Original Application No.2056 of 1994 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, claiming that he was entitled to continue in service until 60 years. He relied on the Note below the second proviso to Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code, as amended by a Finance Department notification dated 13 October 1989, which defined 'workman' as a highly skilled, skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled artisan employed on a monthly rate of pay in any industrial or workcharged establishment. He also contended that the Works Department should be treated as an industry, relying on Des Raj v. State of Punjab (1988 (2) SLR 789). The Tribunal, without a counter affidavit from the State, allowed the application on 9 January 1995, holding that a mason was an artisan whose work was manual and therefore a workman, entitling him to retire at 60. The State filed a review application bringing to the Tribunal's notice the Supreme Court judgment in State of Orissa v. Adwait Charan Mohanty, Civil Appeal No.1497 of 1993 decided on 27 January 1995 (1995 Supp (1) SCC 470), which held that similar government employees retire at 58. The Tribunal dismissed the review on 8 July 1996 without considering that judgment. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court examined the history of the Note. Prior to amendment, the Note defined workman as an artisan employed in any government establishment, but the amendment omitted the words 'Government establishment'. The amended Note applied only to industrial or workcharged establishments and not to employees working in government establishments. Since the respondent admittedly worked in a government establishment, the Note was inapplicable. The Court held that the issue was fully covered by Adwait Charan Mohanty, where it had been decided that an artisan who is a government employee retires on completing 58 years. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Tribunal dated 9 January 1995, and dismissed the original application filed by the respondent, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Retirement Age - Workman Definition under Orissa Service Code - Rule 71(a), Orissa Service Code - The respondent, employed as a mason in the workcharged establishment and later brought into the regular government establishment, claimed that he was entitled to retire at 60 under the amended Note below the second proviso to Rule 71(a), which defined 'workman' as an artisan employed in an industrial or workcharged establishment. The Supreme Court found that the amendment omitted 'Government establishment', so the Note did not apply to government employees, and held that the case was covered by State of Orissa v. Adwait Charan Mohanty. Held that a government employee working as an artisan in a government establishment retires at 58 years; the Tribunal's contrary order was set aside and the original application dismissed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent, a mason in government establishment, is entitled to retire at 60 under the Note below second proviso to Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code or at 58 as a government employee; and whether the Works Department of the State Government should be treated as an industry for retirement age purposes.
Final Decision
The appeal was allowed; the impugned judgment of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal dated January 9, 1995 was set aside; the original application filed by the respondent was dismissed; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Retirement age for government employees in Orissa is 58 years unless covered by Workman Note under industrial or workcharged establishment
- Amended Note below second proviso to Rule 71(a) Orissa Service Code excludes workers in government establishments
- Artisans in government establishment are government employees and retire at 58
- Tribunal's finding ignoring Supreme Court precedent in Adwait Mohanty set aside
