ALL ORISSA ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION Vs STATE OF ORISSA
Bench: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
Case number: SLP(C) No.-012717-012717 / 1996
Diary number: 69013 / 1996
Advocates: BHARAT SANGAL Vs
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER: ALL ORISSA ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION
RESPONDENT: STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/09/1996
BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
JUDGMENT: O R D E R 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. Justices 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 for reconsideration of the judgment rendered in State of Orissa vs. Adwant Charan Mohanty & Ors. [1995 Supp. (1) SCC 470]. We thought that there was a conflict between the judgment in State of Orissa vs. Arnab Kumar Dutta [JT 1996 (2) SC 515] 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 Mohnaty’s case . Smt. Indira Jaising has contended that the Government have treated different classes of the persons, namely, electrician, plumber, mastery, 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 have been fitted into class III and upwards, though they are skilled or highly skilled, they are not entitled to 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. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2