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

PETITIONER: ALL ORISSA ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/09/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

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