The age of superannuation for employees remains 60 years in the absence of Union Cabinet approval for a roll-back to 58 years, affirming previous court rulings.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. Since both the Writ Petition and the Contempt Petition have been filed by the same Petitioner, this Court proposed to hear both the matters together and pass a common order.

2. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order of revival of suspension dated 27.12.1999, which is illegal, arbitrary without power of authority and jurisdiction.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

3. The Orissa Drugs & Chemicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'ODCL') had been incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 in the year 1979. Government of India owns 51% of its share capital and Government of Orissa owns 49% of share capital through M/s. Indian Drugs and Pharmaceutical Ltd. (IDPL) and IPICOL respectively.

4. The petitioner was put under suspension due to extraneous reason on 27.12.1999. The Disciplinary authority himself enquired into the charge sheet and imposed major penalty of dismissal dated 04.07.2000 which was set-aside in appeal with effect from 26.3.2001 vide order dated 10.09.2001. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition bearing OJC No.13337 of 2001 challenging the order of the Appellate authority directing fresh enquiry by IDPL. Ultimately, after hearing the parties at length, this Court delivered Judgment on 05.08.2004. This Court quashed the enquiry made by the Opp. Party-Company through one ineligible officer namely B.R. Singh during pendency of the writ application. This Court further directed that the enquiry against the petitioner should be completed within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the order. However, it was directed that the petitioner who was directed by the Appellate Authority to remain under suspension shall continue to remain under suspension till completion of enquiry, and will abide by the ultimate result of the enquiry.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition bearing W.P.(C) No.2527 of 2006 challenging the long-term suspension. Though the Court did not quash the order of suspension on the ground of delay in finalization of the proceeding, this Court made a definite direction that if the petitioner files an application before the Authority within a period of seven days for early disposal of the disciplinary proceeding, the authority shall conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such application. However, the disciplinary proceeding was not completed within the stipulated period.

6. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.3989 of 2008. This Court disposed of the said writ application on 05.02.2010 directing the disciplinary authority to appoint proper and competent enquiry officer so as to avoid further complicacy. This order came to be passed in view of the fact that decision to appoint enquiring authority was taken way back in 2007 but enquiry has not yet commenced.

7. In the meanwhile, on 28.01.2010 the Petitioner was removed from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment. This order dated 28.1.2010 was challenged in W.P. (c) No.2127 of 2010. This Court after hearing the parties allowed the said Writ Petition vide Judgment / order dated 29.01.2014. While quashing the impugned order dated 28.1.2010, this Court specifically directed Opp. Party- Company to allow the petitioner to join in his service. The order dated 29.1.2014 was produced before the Opp. Party - Company on 31.01.2014 at 9.30 am along with joining report. However, the Petitioner was not a