of Orissa & Ors Vs. Arnab Kumar Dutta
 INSC 133 (24
B.L. (J) Hansaria B.L. (J) Ray, G.N. (J) Hansaria. J,
1996 SCC (7) 203 JT 1996 (2) 516 1996 SCALE (1)539
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Parties to bear their own costs.