The main legal point established in the judgment is that the action of OCCL in cancelling the extension of retirement age was arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the provisions of law, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and the petitioners were discriminated and not treated equally.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.

1. The petitioners, who are erstwhile employees of Odisha Construction Corporation Limited (OCCL), seek to quash order dated 11.08.2014, whereby office order dated 31.07.2014 allowing the employees of the Corporation, who were to superannuate on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.07.2014, 31.08.2014 and 30.09.2014, to continue in service upto 31.10.2014 has been cancelled with immediate effect, and further seek for direction to the opposite parties to extend their age of retirement from 58 to 60 years, pursuant to the resolution passed by the Finance Department, Government of Orissa dated 28.06.2014 in Annexure-1, and grant all consequential benefits as due and admissible to them.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioners, on 05.05.2014, were served with notices of their retirement on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years w.e.f. 31.07.2014. The Government of Orissa in its Finance Department resolution dated 28.06.2014 enhanced the retirement age of its employees on superannuation from 58 to 60 years with immediate effect, i.e., from 28.06.2014 by amending the Code 71 (a) of Orissa Service Code. The OCCL circulated office order dated 31.07.20.14 to retain the services of the retiring employees up to 31.10.2014 or till receipt of order of Public Enterprises Department, in this regard, whichever would be earlier. The resolution dated 02.08.2014 of the Public Enterprises Department, regarding enhancement of age of retirement on superannuation of the employees of the State Public Sector Undertakings from 58 to 60 years, was received on 04.08.2014 with a stipulation that the Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) fulfilling the specified preconditions, have to place a proposal for enhancement of age of superannuation before the Board of Directors. Consequent upon such stipulation, the proposal for retention of the service of retired employees was withdrawn by OCCL vide order dated 11.08.2014. Therefore, OCCL issued order dated 11.08.2014 to the petitioners for their retirement from service, followed by relieve orders directing them to handover charges to their controlling authority. But such office orders could not be served on the petitioners, due to their refusal to receive the same, as per the reports of the special messenger, who had been to their residential quarters, and remarks of the postal department.

3. The Board of Directors of OCCL, on examination of letter dated 02.08.2014 of Public Enterprises Department and the pre-conditions for enhancement of retirement age, resolved that the retirement age of its employees be enhanced from 58 to 60 years and, accordingly, vide letter dated 28.08.2014, OCCL requested the Government to approve the proposal. Consequently, Addl. Secretary to the Government in the Department of Water Resources communicated approval of the Government, vide letter dated 17.09.2014, for extension of retirement age of regular, work charged regular and work charged employees of OCCL, including employees of central workshop cadre, from 58 to 60 years, as per Public Enterprises Department resolution dated 02.08.2014. As a consequence thereof, OCCL issued implementation order on 19.09.2014 for extension of retirement age of its employees from 58 to 60 years giving effect from that date. The petitioners, who were to retire from service w.e.f. 31.07.2014 and whose services had been extended upto 31.10.2014 and allowed to continue till 11.07.2014, being aggrieved by the decision so taken by the OCCL on 19.09.2014 extending the age of service from 58 to 60 years in respect of similarly situated employees, have approached this Court by filing the present application, and contend that similar benefits should be extended allowing them to continue till attaining the age of 60 years.

4. Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 15328 of 2014 contended that the petitioners, who were working as Manager (F & A) and Dy. Manager