Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ARNAB KUMAR DUTTA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/01/1996
BENCH:
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
BENCH:
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
RAY, G.N. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (7) 203 JT 1996 (2) 516
1996 SCALE (1)539
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
HANSARIA. J,
Leave granted.
2. 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 & others).
3. Shri 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.
4. In 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.
5. Shri 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.
6. The 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.
7. Parties to bear their own costs.