Electrical Workers Union Vs. State of Orissa & Ors
 INSC 1179 (20 September 1996)
O R D
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 .
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.
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
special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
Pages: 1 2