http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ARNAB KUMAR DUTTA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/01/1996

BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) RAY, G.N. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (7) 203        JT 1996 (2)   516  1996 SCALE  (1)539

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T HANSARIA. J,      Leave granted. 2.   While ordering  for issuance  of notice,  it was stated that the  matter would be disposed of at the notice stage in view of the judgment of this Court delivered on 27.1.1995 in C.A.No.1497/93. which  has since  been reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC  470 (State  of Orissa  & others  vs. Adwait  Charan Mohanty & others). 3.   Shri Misra.  who has  appeared for  the respondent, has however, taken a stand that the appeal may not be decided on the basis  of  the  aforesaid  judgment  inasmuch  as  while deciding the  aforesaid case, this Court’s attention was not drawn to  the  Resolution  of  the  State  Government  dated 21.5.1974 on the subject of age of superannuation of workmen appointed in Architectural and Drawing Branches of P.W.D. in which draughtsman  is one  of the  category of  the staff of Architectural Branch,  who is  required to  be  retained  in service till the age of 60 years. 4.   In the  case in  question this Court was called upon to decide the  age of  retirement of a ‘workman’ who as per the second proviso  to Rule  71(a) of  the Orissa  Service  Code shall ordinarily  be retained  in service upto the age of 60 years. In  the Note  appended to  the proviso,  it has  been stated that  ‘a workman’  means a highly skilled, skilled or semi-skilled and  unskilled artisan  employed on  a  monthly rate of pay in any Government establishment. After examining the meaning  of the  word "artisan"  finding  place  in  the different dictionaries, it was held in paragraph 12 that the object of the Rule appears to bring "artisan-workman" on par with Class  IV employees, and he alone is required to retire on the  completion of  60 years of age, but not the gazetted or non-gazetted  Class III Government servants or even Class II or  I, which  would be  the result  if all  artisans were given benefit of retention of service upto 60 years inasmuch

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

as even  a Director of own Planning or Chief Architect could be considered to be an artisan. It was, therefore, held that among others  a draftsman  would not be a workman to get the benefit of retention of service upto the age of 60 years. 5.   Shri Misra has taken pains to submit that the aforesaid Government Resolution  having specifically  stated that  the draftsman would get the benefit of retention of service upto 60 years,  the appeal may not be decided on the basis of the aforementioned judgment,  because if  the attention  of  the Court would  have drawn  to the  Resolution, it  is probable that the  Court would  have taken  different view. We do not agree with  the learned  counsel because  a perusal  of  the Resolution shows  that the  same  owes  its  origin  to  the decision of the Orissa High Court in OJC No.632/69 read with the definition  of the workman in the Note below the proviso to Rule  71 (a).  What is  the purport  of the Note has been explained in  the aforesaid decision of this court. The High Court’s judgment  in the OJC, cannot now be rewarded as good in law.  According to  us,  therefore,  the  fact  that  the attention of  the Court  in Adwait Charan Mohanty’s case was not drawn to the Resolution has no significance. 6.   The appeal,  therefore, has  to be  allowed,  which  we hereby  do,   inasmuch  as  by  the  impugned  judgment  the respondent, who  is a  draftsman, has  been  ordered  to  be retained in  service upto the age of 60 years. He has indeed to retire on completion of age of 58 years. So, the impugned judgment is set aside. 7.   Parties to bear their own costs.