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

PETITIONER: STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SADHU CHARAN PRADHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/09/1997

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:               THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1997 Present:                Hon’ble Mrs.Justice Sujata V. Manohar                Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.P. Wadhwa Ms. Kirti Mishra, Adv., for the appellants                       J U D G M E N T      The following judgement of the Court was delivered:                       J U D G M E N T D.P. Wadhwa, J.      Leave granted.      This appeal  by the state of Orissa is directed against the judgement  of the  Orissa Administrative  Tribunal  (for short the  Tribunal’) dated January 9,1995 allowing Original Application No.2056  of 1994  of the respondent holding that the respondent,  would retire  at the age of 60 years as per the service rule applicable in the State.      The  respondent  jointed  service  in  the  workcharged establishment  of   the  Executive   Engineer,   Roads   and Buildings, Bhubaneswar  on November  16,1961 as a mason.  On February  17,1978   he  was  brought  over  to  the  regular establishment thus  being in the Government Department.  The respondent was  to retire  on September 30,1994 on attaining the age  of  58  years.    The  respondent,  however,  filed original application  in the  Tribunal claiming  that he was entitled to  continue in  service upto  the age of 60 years. His claim  was based  on the ’Note ’ below second proviso to Rule 71(a)  of the  Orissa Service  Code.  His further claim was that the Works Department of the State Government should be treated  as "industry’  relying upon  a decision  of  the Supreme Court in the case of Des Raj and others vs. State of Punjab and others 1988 (2) SLR 789.      The Tribunal  noticed that the State Government did not file any  counter and  that note  on  which  the  respondent relied  was   incorporated   as   per   Finance   Department notification dated October 13,1989 which reads as follows:      "Workman" means  a highly  skilled,      skilled, semi-skilled  or unskilled      artisan employed  on a monthly rate      of  pay   in  any   industrial   or      workcharged establishment."

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

    The Ribunal then held that an artisan was a functionary whose nature  of work  was manual  and that mason would come within that  category.   It also  noticed that  in a certain communication of  the Works  Department a  post of the mason was catagorised as "workman".  The Tribunal then referred to various  others   OAS  filed   by  employees  of  the  Works Department  was  an  industry.    The  Tribunal,  therefore, concluded that  the respondent  was to be treated as workman and he  was entitled to continue in service till he attained the age  of 60  years.   The State Government filed a review application before  the Tribunal  bringing to  its notice  a judgement of  this Court  in State  of Orissa and others Vs. Adwait Charan  Mohanty and  others Civil  Appeal No.1497  of 1993 decided  on January  27, 1995  (since reported  as 1995 Supp (1)  SCC 470)  pointing out  that in a similar case the Supreme Court  had held  that a government employee like the respondent would  retire at  the age  of  58  years.    This application was  dismissed by  the Tribunal  on July  8,1996 without referring  to the judgement of this Court and merely noting that  the State Government only wanted to record that counter affidavit  had been  filed which  according  to  the Tribunal was  filed one  day late after it had announced the judgement.      It was  submitted before  us that  the present case was fully covered  by the  aforesaid decision in Adwait Mhanty’s case.   Prior to  the amendment of the note below the second proviso to  Rule 71(a)  which has been reproduced above, the note reads as under:      "Note:- For  this  purpose  workman      means  a   highly  skilled,   semi-      skilled  and   un-skilled   artisan      employed on  a monthly  rate of pay      in any govt. establishment."      It  is   significant  to   note  that  the  "Government establishment" has  been omitted after amendment of the Note and the  Note as  it existed  now would  apply industrial or workcharged establishment and not those employees working in any Government establishment.  Admittedly, the respondent is working in  the Government  establishment and  the  Note  on which the Tribunal relied would be inapplicable to his case. This very  note was  subject matter of interpretation in the case of  Adwait Mohanty  where also  the question  was if an artisan in  the Government establishment would retire at the age of  58 years  or on  his attaining the age of 6 0 years. This Court  after considering the relevant rules came to the conclusion that  an artisan  in the  circumstances  being  a Government employee  would retire  on his  completion of  58 years of  age.   Statement of  law by this Court in the case Adwait Mohanty  fully covers  the facts of this case and the relevant rules on the subject.      Accordingly,  the   appeal  is  allowed,  the  impugned judgement of  the Tribunal  is set aside and the OA filed by the respondent  is dismissed.   There will be no order as to costs.