Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Ori) 610

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
A.K. Mohapatra, J.
Sri Niranjan Das - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) Nos. 33444, 33356, 33358, 33359, 33360, 33362, 33363, 33365, 33366, 33367, 33369, 33370, 33371, 33374, 33375, 33376, 33378, 33382, 33383, 33384, 33447, 33449, 33450, 33452, 33454, 33455, 33456, 33457, 33458, 33460, 33463, 33465, 33467, 33469, 33470, 33471, 33476 and 35590 of 2022
Decided On : 24-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Digambara Mishra, Advocate Mr. Debashis Hota, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. P.K. Parhi, D.S.G.I. along with Mr. D.R. Bhokta, C.G.C., Mr. J. Nayak, C.G.C, Mr. S Swain, Sr. P.C., Ms. Sulachana Patro, C.G.C., Mr. C.K. Pradhan, Sr. P.C., Mr. M.K. Pradhan, C.G.C., Mr. A. Routray, Sr. P.C., Mr. B.K. Padhi, C.G.C., Ms. B.L. Tripathy, C.G.C., Ms. Babita Sahu, C.G.C., Mr. B. Dash, Sr. P.C., Mr. B. Maharana, C.G.C., Mr. G. Mohanty, Sr. P.C., Mr. K.C. Kar, Sr. P.C., Mr. S. Swain, Sr. P.C., Mr. P.S. Nayak, Sr. P.C., Mr. S.S. Kashyap, C.G.C., Mr. D. Tripathy, C.G.C., Mr. A. Pradhan, C.G.C., Mr. M.K. Pati, C.G.C., Mr.P.P. Behera, C.G.C., Mr. D. Gochhayat, C.G.C., Mr. D.K. Sahu, C.G.C., Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, C.G.C., & Mrs. J. Sahoo, C.G.C.

The court upheld the retirement age of 60 for employees of a public sector undertaking, declaring attempts to roll back this age unauthorized without Cabinet approval.

Headnote:(A) Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - The correctness of the superannuation age of employees of government undertakings is under scrutiny - The petitioners seek salary and benefits from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2019, declaring retirement age 60 years not 58.

(B) Legal principle of non-retroactive effect of administrative orders is emphasized - No governmental approval to roll back retirement age from 60 to 58.

(C) Government's O.M. tried to withdraw established rights without proper authorization under a judicial principle established in previous judgments.

(D) Court concluded the administrative O.M. lacks legal force due to the absence of Union Cabinet approval. (E) Relief granted is service benefits restated at the age of retirement of 60 years with no salary for the period post-retirement acceptance. (Paras 28-32)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners served in a government undertaking for over three decades and contested retirement notice served at 58 years, arguing previously established rights affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Findings of Court:
The administrative order rolling back age of superannuation acknowledged but found devoid of legal effect; service benefits are confirmed with calculation of retirement age at 60 years.

Issues: The court addressed the validity of the administrative order on pension age and appropriateness of seeking salary after acceptance of retirement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that without valid governmental approval for O.M. rolling back retirement age and ignoring earlier judgments, right to benefits remains upheld at 60 years with limitations on salary claims.

Result: Petitions partly allowed, directing service benefits recognition but denying salary post-acceptance.

Table of Content
1. petitioners' claim concerning salary and retirement benefits. (Para 1 , 2)
2. facts surrounding the age of retirement and events leading to the writ petition. (Para 3 , 4 , 10)
3. court's overview of representation and adjournments. (Para 5 , 16)
4. arguments supporting the petitioners' claim based on precedent. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
5. petitioners' arguments against the validity of the opposite parties' actions. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
6. opposite parties' arguments regarding the non-payment due to no work no pay. (Para 15 , 24)
7. court's observations on prior judgments and their relevance. (Para 26 , 28 , 30)
8. the court discusses the legality of the o.m. dated 04.01.2023. (Para 29 , 31)
9. final ruling on petitioners' retirement and benefits. (Para 32)

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Mohapatra, J.

The present batch of writ applications have been filed by the employees of Orissa Drugs and Chemicals Limited (Opposite Party No.2) with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to release salary and consequential service and financial benefits including enhanced D.A., H.R.A., Medical Allowance, annual increments, leave encashment, gratuity etc. for the period from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2019 along with interest @ 12% per annum till the date of actual payment.

2. Since the batch of writ applications indicated hereinabove involve a common question of law, all those matters were taken up together for hearing. Further, since the factual background involved in each of the writ application is almost identical the facts involved in W.P.(C) No.33444 of 2022, i.e., in the case of Petitioner-Sri Niranjan Das, is being taken up by this Court for analysis of the factual background of the present case and, accordingly, the same is treated as the lead case in the present batch of matters. All the above noted matters are being disposed of by the following common order.

3. The factual matrix involved in W.P.(C) No.33444 of 2022, in a narrow compass, is that the Petitioner-Sri Niranjan Das has been working in the Opposite Party No.2-Company for over three decades. While he was working in Opposite Party No.2-Company, which is admittedly a Government of India owned company, he was served with a notice of superannuation on 01.03.2017 intimating the Petitioner that since he will attain the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.03.2017, therefore, he will retire from service w.e.f. 31.03.2017. The aforesaid notice dated 01.03.2017 has been issued by the Opposite Parties by taking into consideration the age of the retirement of the Petitioner at 58 years. Therefore, the factual position involved in the present writ petition is almost admitted by both the sides. The only dispute that is involved in the present writ petition is with regard to the age of superannuation, i.e., whether the Petitioner will retire on attaining the age of 58 years or 60 years?

4. The cause of action for filing the writ petition has been shown to have arisen on 26.09.2022 when the Petitioner submitted a representation claiming salary for the period from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2019 along with all consequential service and financial benefits and interest @ 12% per annum enclosing therewith the judgment delivered by this Court on 5.11.2009 in W.P.(C) No.14966 of 2009 which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.6599 of 2010 vide order dated 22.11.2013 and the Review Petition No.19 of 2014 which was dismissed on 26.08.2022.

5. Heard Mr. Digambara Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in the batch of writ petitions except W.P.(C) No.35590 of 2022 and Mr. Debashis Hota, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35590 of 2022 as well as Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India along with learned Central Government Counsels in respective writ petitions.

6. At the outset, it is stated by Mr. D. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in all the writ petitions that on 05.11.2019, a Division Bench of this Court decided the issue with r