IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.
Ashok Kumar Dash - Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 7460 of 2019, 7461 of 2019, 7462 of 2019
Decided On : 27-07-2021
Retirement Age - Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board - Section 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code, Rule-71(a) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code and Rule-71(a) in the context of enhancing the retirement age of the employees of the Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board from 58 to 60 years. The court highlighted the absence of separate rules for the Board employees and emphasized that the service conditions, rules, and regulations for the employees of the Board should be governed at par with State Government employees. The court quashed the notices of retirement issued to the petitioners and directed the extension of retirement benefits to them.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, employees of the Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board, sought to quash the notices of retirement and requested to be allowed to continue till the age of 60 years at par with State Government employees. The Board had taken steps to enhance the retirement age of its employees from 58 to 60 years, but the notices of retirement were issued before the approval of the enhancement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners, being governed by the rules and regulations applicable to State Government employees, were entitled to the benefit of the enhanced retirement age from 58 to 60 years. The court held that the notices of retirement issued to the petitioners were not sustainable and quashed them. The court directed the extension of retirement benefits to the petitioners, including the re-fixing of their pay and other allowances, along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of the petitioners to the benefit of the enhanced retirement age of 60 years, as applicable to State Government employees, and the validity of the notices of retirement issued to the petitioners before the approval of the enhancement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners, being governed by the rules and regulations applicable to State Government employees, were entitled to the benefit of the enhanced retirement age from 58 to 60 years. The court emphasized that the absence of separate rules for the Board employees meant that their service conditions should be governed at par with State Government employees.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the notices of retirement issued to the petitioners, and directed the extension of retirement benefits to the petitioners, including the re-fixing of their pay and other allowances, along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. - W.P.(C) No.7460 of 2019, in which the petitioner is working as a Senior Stenographer in the office of the OISIP, JICA, has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
".........(i) To quash the impugned notice of retirement dated 29.03.2019 issued by the opposite party no.4 vide Annexure-14.
(ii) To direct the opposite parties more particularly the opposite partyno.1 to allow the petitioner to continue till attainment of 60 years at par with the State Government employees in view of the provisions of Section 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code read with Clause-12 read with Clause-12 of the Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board Regulation, 1992.
(iii) To direct the opposite parties to grant all service and consequential benefits to the petitioner."
Similarly, W.P.(C) No.7461 of 2019, the petitioner of which is working as a receptionist in the office of the Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board, has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"....... (i) To direct the opposite parties more particularly the opposite partyno.1 to allow the petitioner to continue till attainment of 60 years at par with the State Government employees in view of the provisions of Section 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code read with Clause-12 read with Clause-12 of the Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board Regulation, 1992.
(ii) To direct the opposite parties to grant all service and consequential benefits to the petitioner." Likewise, W.P.(C) No. 7462 of 2019, in which the petitioner is working as Senior Executive Assistant under the Project Engineering, PMU, Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board, has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
".........(i) To quash the impugned notice of retirement dated 29.03.2019 issued by the opposite party no.4 vide Annexure-14.
(ii) To direct the opposite parties more particularly the opposite partyno.1 to allow the petitioner to continue till attainment of 60 years at par with the State Government employees in view of the provisions of Section 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code read with Clause-12 read with Clause-12 of the Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board Regulation, 1992.
(iii) To direct the opposite parties to grant all service and consequential benefits to the petitioner."
All the three writ petitions have been filed by the employees of Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board with similar reliefs. Therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment which will govern in all the three cases.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board (OWSSB) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') has been constituted under Orissa Act 12 of 1991, i.e., the Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1991"), which was published in the Orissa Gazette notification dated 4th June, 1991. For regulating the service conditions of the employees of the Board, no separate rules have been framed. After enactment of the Act, 1991, Housing and Urban Development Department issued a notification on 16.08.1993 framing regulation which is called as "Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations, 1992"). So far as salaries, allowances and conditions of service of the of the employees of the Board are concerned, the same are governed under clause-12 of the Regulations, 1992, which clearly provide that the employees are governed by the rules and regulations framed at par with the State government employees. The petitioners were appointed by the Board in exercise of powers conferred under Section 9(1) of the Act, 1991 read with clause-21(1) of the Regulations, 1992. As such, the petitioners were discharging their duties and responsibilities assigned to them by the Board.
2.1 The Addl. Chief Secretary to Government of Odisha, Finance Department issued a resolution vide notification dated 28.06.2014 in which the age of superannuation of the State Government employees w
Ashutosh Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan
Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam vs. Radhey Shyam Gautam
Faridabad CT Scan Centre vs. Director, General of Health Services
Food Corporation of India vs. Bhanu Lodh
Gauri Shankar vs. Union of India
Harwindra Kumar vs. Chief Engineer, Karmik
K.R. Laxman vs. Karnatak Electricity Board
Ram Swaroop Masawan vs. Municipal Council
State of Karnatak vs. B. Suvarva Malini
State of Punjab vs. Buta Singh
State of U.P. vs. Dayanand Chakrawarty
V.T. Khanzode and others vs. Reserve Bank of India and another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.