Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the State of Orissa against an order of the High Court directing a draftsman, Arnab Kumar Dutta, to be retained in service until the age of 60 years. The dispute concerned the correct age of superannuation for a draftsman under the Orissa Service Code. The State contended that the draftsman was not a 'workman' under Rule 71(a) second proviso and its Note, and therefore was required to retire at 58 years. The respondent relied on a Government Resolution dated 21.5.1974 which stated that draftsmen in the Architectural and Drawing Branches of P.W.D. would be retained till 60 years. The matter reached the Supreme Court after leave was granted. The Court, while issuing notice, indicated that the appeal would be disposed of at the notice stage in view of its earlier decision in State of Orissa v. Adwait Charan Mohanty (1995 Supp (1) SCC 470), which held that a draftsman is not a workman under Rule 71(a). The respondent's counsel argued that the appeal could not be decided solely on that precedent because the Court in Adwait Charan Mohanty had not been shown the 1974 Resolution. The State relied on the precedent and the statutory interpretation. The core legal issues were whether a draftsman falls within the definition of 'workman' under the second proviso to Rule 71(a) and its Note, and whether the 1974 Resolution could alter that interpretation. The Court examined the Note, which defines a workman as "a highly skilled, skilled or semi-skilled and unskilled artisan employed on a monthly rate of pay in any Government establishment." In Adwait Charan Mohanty, the Court had analyzed the term 'artisan' using dictionaries and concluded that the object of the Rule was to bring "artisan-workman" on par with Class IV employees only. It held that if all artisans were given retention up to 60, even a Director of Town Planning or Chief Architect could be considered an artisan, which was not intended. Therefore, a draftsman was excluded from the benefit. Regarding the Resolution, the Court found that it owed its origin to a decision of the Orissa High Court in OJC No.632/69, read with the definition of workman in the Note. The Court stated that the High Court's judgment in that OJC could not now be regarded as good law. Consequently, the fact that the Resolution was not considered in Adwait Charan Mohanty had no significance; the Resolution could not override the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Rule. The Court thus held that the respondent, being a draftsman, must retire at 58 years, not 60. The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Retirement Age - Workman/Artisan Definition - Orissa Service Code, Rule 71(a) second proviso and Note - The court examined whether a draftsman qualifies as a 'workman' entitled to retire at 60 rather than 58. It held that the Note to the proviso defines workman as a highly skilled, skilled or semi-skilled and unskilled artisan employed on monthly rate of pay in any Government establishment, and the object is to bring artisan-workman on par with Class IV employees only. A draftsman is not a workman and must retire at 58. (Paras 4, 6) B) Precedent - Binding Effect - Failure to Consider Government Resolution - Orissa Service Code, Rule 71(a) - The respondent argued that the earlier Supreme Court decision in Adwait Charan Mohanty did not consider the Government Resolution dated 21.5.1974, which stated draftsmen would be retained till 60. The court rejected this, finding the Resolution owed its origin to an Orissa High Court decision that was no longer good law, and the Resolution could not override the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Rule. Therefore the earlier precedent applied. (Paras 3, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a draftsman is a 'workman' under the second proviso to Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code and the Note appended to it, entitled to retire at 60 years; Whether the Government Resolution dated 21.5.1974 can prevail over the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Rule in Adwait Charan Mohanty; Whether the fact that the Resolution was not considered in Adwait Charan Mohanty affects the binding nature of that decision
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; respondent draftsman to retire on completion of 58 years of age, not 60. Parties to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- A draftsman is not a 'workman' under Rule 71(a) second proviso and Note of the Orissa Service Code
- the Note defines workman as a highly skilled
- skilled or semi-skilled and unskilled artisan employed on monthly rate of pay in any Government establishment
- the object of the Rule is to bring artisan-workman on par with Class IV employees only
- Government Resolution dated 21.5.1974 cannot override the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Rule
- draftsman retires at 58 years
- not 60
