ALL ORISSA ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNIONversusSTATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

           ALL ORISSA ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION                                       A
                             v.
                 STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

                           SEPTEMBER 20, 1996

      [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                                         B

      SelVice Law:

       Superannuation-Employees under the State of 01isscr-<;lass III and
upwards though skilled or highly skilled not entitled to the benefit of 60 year.1'   C
for superannuatiott--Class W employees though skilled, semi skilled or highly
skilled alone entitled to the benefit of superannuation at the age of 60 years.

     State of 01issa v.Adwant Charan Mohanty & Ors., [1995] Supp.1 SCC
470 and State of Olissa v.Amab Kumar Dutta, JT (1996) 2 SC 516, referred
to.                                                                                  D
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 12717 of 1996.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 21.3.96 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal at Cuttak in O.A. No. 1087 of 1996.                            E
   . Mrs. Indira Jaising, Bharat Sangal and Ms. Anita Chinoy for the
Petitioner.

       The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                                                                     F
       Smt. Indira J aising, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in this
petitio~J has argued on 2.8.1996 before the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr.
Justices M.M. Punchhi and K. Venkataswami, JJ. and the learned Judges
have referred the ~atter for reconsideration of the earlier decision by the
Bench of which Hon'ble Sri Hansaria, J. was a member. Consequently, it               G
was posted on August 5, 1996 before the Bench consisting of Hon'ble
Justice G.N. Ray and Hon'ble Justice Hansaria who have referred the
matter again to us for reconsideration of the judgment rendered in State
of Orissa v. Adwant Charan Mohanty & Ors., [1995] Supp. 1 SCC 470. We
thought that there was a conflict between the judgment in State of Orissa
v. Amab Kumar Dutta, JT (1996) 2 SC 516 and the judgment in Mohanty's                H
                                      625
    626                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   case. After going through the two judgments, we find that there is no
    conflict of the views. On the other hand, in A.K Dutta's case, the Bench
    has followed the decision in Mohanty's case.

         Smt. Indira Jaising has contended that the Government have treated
  different classes of the persons, namely, electrician, plumber, mastry, fitters
B Grade II, roller mechanic, mechanic, wireman, etc...... as skilled workmen
  entitled to the benefit of 60 years and that the judgment in Mohanty's case
  requires consideration. We do not think that the learned counsel is right
  in her submission. We have considered the entire service rules operating
  in the State of Orissa and also various instructions issued by the Govern-
C ment from time to time together with the note to Rule 71(a) of the Rules.
  We have categorised various persons who are eligible to superannuation at
  the age of 60 years and such of those employees who have been fitted into
  class III and upwards, though they are skilled or highly skilled, they are not
  entitled to the benefit of 60 years for superannuation. They are required
  to retire on attaining the age of 58 years while the Class IV employees,
D though skilled, semi-skilled or highly skilled alone are entitled to the
  benefit of superannuation at the age of 60 years. In that view, we are of
  the considered opinion that the judgment in Mohanty's case does not
  require reconsideration.                      ·

          The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
E