Holding

A draughtsman is not a "workman" within the meaning of the second proviso to Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code and therefore is not entitled to retention in service up to the age of 60 years.

Summary

The State of Orissa appealed against an Orissa Administrative Tribunal order that a draughtsman be retained in service up to the age of 60. The central question was whether a draughtsman qualifies as a "workman" under the second proviso to Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code, which would entitle him to such retention. The State also argued that a 1974 Government Resolution, which specifically provided for retention of draughtsmen up to 60, should control the interpretation. The Supreme Court relied on its earlier decision in State of Orissa v. Adwait Charan Mohanty, holding that the term "artisan‑workman" in the note to the proviso is limited to Class IV‑type employees and does not include gazetted or Class III officers such as draughtsmen. The Court found the 1974 resolution to be based on a now‑overruled High Court decision and therefore not determinative. Consequently, the draughtsman must retire at 58, and the Tribunal’s order was set aside.

Issues considered

Whether a draughtsman employed in the Architectural and Drawing Branch of the PWD falls within the definition of "workman" under the second proviso to Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code.
Whether the 1974 State Government Resolution mandating retention of draughtsmen up to age 60 is binding on the interpretation of the Service Code.
Whether the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in State of Orissa v. Adwait Charan Mohanty applies to the present case.

Subjects

service lawretirement ageworkman definitionOrissa Service Coderetention in servicedraughtsmangovernment employee classification

Judgment

\
}

A STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.
v.
ARNAB KUMAR DUTTA

JANUARY 24, 1996

B [G.N. RAY AND B.L. HANSARIA JJ.]

Se1vice Law :

Orissa Service Code

c R. 71 (a) Second proviw-Draughtsman in P. WD.-Age of superannua-
tion-Held, Draughtsman would not be a workman to get benefit of retention
in se1vice up to the age of 60 years-He has to retire on completion of 58
years of age.

The present appeal was filed by the State of Orissa against the
D
judgment of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal which ordered the respon-
dent, a draughtsman in the service of the State Govt., to be retained in
service upto the age of 60 years. This Court, while ordering issue of notice
in the present appeal obs~rved that the matter would be disposed of in
view of the judgment of this Court in State of 01issa & On. v. Adwait
E Charan Mohanty & 010. *
It was contended for the respondent that the appeal should not be
decided on the basis of Adwait Charan Mohanty's case* as in that case
Court's attention was not drawn to the Resolution of the State Government
dated 21.5.1974 on the subject of age of superannuation of workman
F appointed in Architectural and Dra\\ing Branches of P.W.D. in which
draughts man was one of the categories of the staff of Architectural Branch
rec1uired to be retained in service till the age of 60 years.

Allowing the appeal, this Court
G HELD : The respondent has to retire on completion of the age of 58
years. This Court in State of 01issa v. Adwait Charan Mohanty & Ors.* on
the question of retention in service of a workman upto the age of 60 years,
as per the second proviso to s.7l(a) of the Orissa Service Code, examined
the meaning of the word 'artisan' occurring in the note appended to the
H proviso, and held that the object of the Rule appears to bring 'artisan
892
STATEv. A.K. DUTTA[HANSARIA,J.] 893

workman' on par with class IV employees, and he alone is required to retire A
on completion of 60 years of age, but not the gazetted or non-gazetted
class-III government servant or even class II or class I; and, therefore, a
draughtsman would not be a workman to get the benefit of retention in
service upto the age of 60 years. The fact that attention of the Court was
not drawn to the Resolution dated 21.5.1974, has no significance.
B
(894-G; 893-E·F; 894-A-C]
*State of Orissa & Ors. v. Adwait Charan Mohanty & Ors., (1995]
• Supp. 1 SCC 470, explained and relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2338 of
1996. c
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.94 of the Orissa Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in OA. No. 2558(C) of 1994.

A.K. Panda for the Appellants.
D
P.N. Misra for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

' HANSARIA, J. Leave granted.
E
2. While ordering for issuance of notice, it was stated that the matter
would be disposed of at the notice stage in view of the judgment of this
Court delivered on 27.1.1995 in C.A. No. 1497/93, which has since been
reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 470 State of Orissa & Othe1s v. Adwait
Charan Mohanty & Others.
F
3. Shri Misra, who has appeared for the respondent, has, however,
taken a stand that the appeal may not be decided on the basis of the
aforesaid judgment inasmuch as while deciding the aforesaid case, this
Courts attention was not drawn to the Resolution of the State Government
dated 21.5.1974 on the subject of age of superannuation of workmen G
,.. appointed in Architectural and Drawing Branches of P.W.D. in which
+ draughtsman is one of the category of the staff of Architectural Branch,

-
who is required to be retained in service till the age of 60 years.

4. In the case in question this Court was called upon to decide the
age of retirement of a 'workman' who as per the second proviso to Rule H
}

894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.i<..

A 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code shall ordinarily be retained in service upto
the age of 60 years. In the Note appended to the proviso, it has been stated
that 'a workman' means a highly skilled, skilled or semi-skilled and un-
skilled G1tisa11 employed on a monthly rate of pay in any Government
establishment. After examining the meaning of the word "artisan" finding
place in the different dictionaries, it was held in paragraph 12 that the
B object of the Rule appears to bring "artisan-workman" on par with Class
IV employees, and he alone is required to retire on the completion of 60
years of age but not the gazetted or non-gazetted Class III Government •
servants or even Class JI or I, which would be the result if all artisans were J
given benefit of retention of service upto 60 years inasmuch as even a
C Director of Town Planning or Chief Architect could be considered to be
an artisan. It was, therefore, held that among others a draftsman would not
be a workman to get the benefit of retention of service upto the age of 60
years.

5. Shri Misra has taken pams to submit that the aforesaid Govern-
D ment Resolution having specifically stated that the draftsman would get the
benefit of retention of service upto 60 years, the appeal may not be decided
on the basis of the aforementioned judgment, because if the attention of
the Court would have drawn to the Resolution, it is probable that the Court
would have taken different view. We do not agree with the learned counsel
E because a perusal of the Resolution shows that the same owes its origin to
the decision of the Orissa High Court in OJC No. 632/69 read with the
definition of the workman in the Note below the proviso to Rule 71(a).
What is the purport of the Note has been explained in the aforesaid
decision of this Court. The High Court's judb'Illent in the OJC, cannot now
be regarded as good in law. According t0 us, therefore, the fact that the
F attention of the Court in Adwait Charan Mohanty's case was not drawn to
the Resolution has no significance.

6. The appeal, therefore, has to be allowed, \Vhich we hereby do,
inasmuch as by the impugned judgment the respondent, who is a
G draftsman, has been ordered to be retained in service upto the age of 60
years. He has indeed to retire on completion of age of 58 years. So, the
impugned judgment is set a'ide.

7. Parties to bear their own costs.

R.P. Appeal allowed.