Back
2003(6) Supreme 938
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Orissa High Court)
Shivaraj V. Patil & D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.
Grid Corporation of Orissa and Ors. -Appellants
versus
Rasananda Das -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5525 of 2000
With
C.A. Nos 5527-28, 5530-31, 5529 and 5526/2000, I.A. Nos 15-16 and 19-20 in C.A. Nos. 348-49/74, SLP (C) Nos. 14650, 14653, 14755 and 14756 of 2001
Decided on 26-9-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : G.L. Sanghi, Sr. Advocate Raj Kumar Mehta, Ms. M. Sarada, Ms Homa Chettri, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Huzefa Ahmadi, Vinoo Bhagat, Radha Shyam Jena, M.M. Kashyap, Advocate (NP) J.P. Misra, Advocates.
Held : The appellants having given better pay scales, as early in 1969, cannot reduce the pay scales when it comes to granting pensionary/retrial benefits for the period between the age of 58 to 60 years. The argument advanced in this regard that although the employees are entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years but during the period of 58 to 60 years they should not be governed by the pay scales applicable to regular employees of the Board cannot be accepted. When the employees continue to work up to the retirement age of 60 years their pay scales cannot be reduced for the period between 58 to 60 years. There is no question of taking any double advantage as sought to be contended on behalf of the appellants in the light of the undisputed facts. Better pay scales were given without any reservation and even at the time of giving these pay scales it was not mentioned that after the age of 58 years they should be governed by the regular pay scales applicable to the employees of the Board. There cannot be two types of pay scales one for the purpose of continuing in service up to the age of retirement and the other for the period between 58 to 60 years. It must be kept in mind that pension is not a bounty but it is hard-earned benefit for long service, which cannot be taken away. Looking to the facts found and the reasons recorded by the High Court in the impugned orders we cannot find fault with them. These appeals do not have any merit. Consequently they are dismissed with no order as to costs. (Paras 10 and 11)
(ii) Service Matter-Directions in I.A. s for vacation of quarters by employees who overstayed after attaining age of 60 years and fixing of time limit regarding belated claims for identification of the workmen.
Held : It is needless to state that those employees, who have overstayed after attaining the age of 60 years and who have not vacated the quarters after attaining the age of 60 years, shall pay arrears of rent/penal rent in accordance with the Rules for the period of their occupation and they shall have to vacate the quarters occupied by them. They cannot continue occupying the quarters after their retirement even at the age of 60 years. As regards the belated claims for identification of the workmen and the payment of interest on their arrears due, appropriate orders are to be passed in the light of the earlier orders of this Court and the order passed in the aforementioned appeals. The I.As. are disposed of accordingly. (Para 12)
JUDGMENT
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-
Civil Appeal Nos. 5525/2000, 5527-5528/2000, 5530-5531/2000, 5529/2000 and 5526/2000
Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the High Court accepting the plea of the respondents as regards higher scales of pay and pension, Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited and others are in appeal in these appeals. Necessary facts required for the disposal of these appeals, briefly stated, are the following:
2. Hirakund Dam Project was initially entrusted to the Central Waterways, Irrigation and Navigation Commission. The workmen employed therein were getting the pay scales applicable to the employees in the work-charged establishment of the Central Public Works Department (CPWD). The State Government took over the said project w.e.f. 1.4.1960 with understanding that the work-charged employees recruited prior to 1.4.1960 should be allowed to continue on the same scales of pay and on conditions of service as were applicable to them on 31.3.1960, which is evident from the order of Government of Orissa dated 8th September, 1961. The workmen employed subsequent to 1.4.1960 were paid pay scales applicable to the employees of the work-charged establishments of the State Government. With a view to avoid disparity of pay scales between the workmen employed prior to 1.4.1960 and those who were employed thereafter, the State Government terminated the services of the employees who were working in the work-charged establishments prior to 1.4.1960 and offered them fresh employment in the scale of pay applicable to the employees of the work-charged establishments of the State Government. This gave rise to dispute. Ultimately, the matter came to this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 348-349 of 1974. The said appeals were allowed on 13.8.1985 by this Court declaring thus "We, therefore, allow this appeal and declare that the workmen working in the work-charged establishments of the Hirakud Project from before 1.4.1960 are entitled to the same scale of pay and other conditions of service as before as if they were employees of the work-charged establishments of the Central Public Works Department." Later, on 20th September, 1989, this Court directed the Labour Court to identify 1200 workmen who were entitled to the benefit of the order of this Court made on August 13, 1995 in "Civil Appeal Nos. 348-349 of 1974". It is not disputed that after the Hirakud Dam Project was taken over by the State Government on 1.4.1960, different workmen employed prior to 1.4.1960 continued to work under different departments, namely Public Health Department, Irrigation Department and the Electrical Department. It is also not in dispute that the workmen working in Electrical Department on the formation of Orissa State Electricity Board were continued in service under the said Board. One such employees of the Board was asked to retire on completion of 58 years of age on attaining superannuation applicable to the other employees of the Board who were appointed after 1.4.1960 by the State Government or the Board as the case may be. He filed a Writ Petition OJC No. 4507 of 1992 questioning the action of the Board asking him to retire at the age of 58 years. The said writ petition was allowed holding that he was entitled to continue till the age of 60 years and he could not be retired at the age of 58 years even though the Board s regulation prescribed the age of superannuation of 58 years because of the statutory protection given to the employees under Section 60 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 notwithstanding the regulation of the Board requiring an employee to retire at the age of 58 years.
3. Admittedly, the scale of pay to the employees of the Board was higher than the scale of pay available to the employees of CPWD. It was also not disputed that the respondents-workmen formerly the employees of the work charged establishment under CPWD prior to 1.4.1960 were allowed the scale of pay of the Board till they attained the age of 58 years; but the dispu
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
