AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.R. Agnihotri, J.—The short point, involved in this petition under Articles 229 and 227 of the Constitution of India is regarding the age of superannuation of the Petitioner on the attainment of which the Petitioner and persons similarly situated shall retire from the service of the Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh.
The Petitioner joined service on 2nd August, 1958 as Charge-man on work-charged basis in the Irrigation Branch of the Public Works Department in the composite State of Punjab. In the year 1970, the Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ''the Corporation'') war, constituted, and the Petitioner joined the Corporation in April, 1970. The service conditions of the Petitioner and other employees who are on the rolls of the Corporation are governed by the certified standing orders which have been made applicable to the Corporation,--vide letter, dated 3rd September, 1986, issued by Certifying Officer and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Haryana, Clause 3 of the aforesaid Standing Orders classifies "workmen" of the Corporation in various categories as under:
CLASSIFICATION OF WORKMEN
The workmen shall be classified as under:
(a) Permanent/Regular Workmen.
(b) Probationer.
(c) Regular Workcharged Workmen.
(d) Temporary/Workcharged Workmen.
(e) Casual Workmen.
(f) Apprentices.
"(a) ''Permanent/Regular Workman'' means a workman who has been engaged on regular basis against a regular post and includes only persons engaged against a regular post and regularised as such in accordance with Sub-Clause (b) below.
(b) A ''Probationer'' is workman who is provisionally employed to fill a vacancy in regular post and has not been regularised by an order in writing in accordance with these Standing Orders. Ordinarily the period of probation shall be six months but it may be extended from time to time at the discretion of the Manager/Management if it is considered necessary to further adjudge the work of the workmen concerned.
If a regular workman is employed as a probationer in a new post or a vacancy and his work during probation is not found satisfactory, he may at any time during probationary period originally fixed or subsequently extended be reverted to his old substantive post. In case, however, the workman is regularised in the new post, he shall lose his lien on his old post.
(c) ''Regular Workcharged Workman'' is a workman who is appointed against a regular workcharged post determined by the Corporation and includes a probationer workcharged having been regularised in the manner, a in Clause (b) above. The wages of such workmen are chargeable to works.
(d) A ''Temporary/Workcharged Workman'' is a workman who has been appointed for a limited or specific period of time on the work of an essentially temporary nature or employed in connection with a temporary increase in work and includes a workcharged employee.
(e) A ''Casual Workman'' is a workman who is employed for any work of a casual nature and includes a workman employed on muster roll or daily basis.
(f) An ''Apprentice'' is a learner who is engaged for training in a job trade of craft for a specified period to be expressed in the contract of apprenticeship irrespective of his being paid a stipend or not for training period and irrespective of the understanding or not of his subsequent absorption in the establishment.
Clause 16-A of the Standing Orders provides for retirement of workmen on attaining the age of superannuation in the following terms--
16-A: RETIREMENT : The workman attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years in the case of regular workmen and for years in the case of regular workmen of the status of Class IV or the Government and temporary work-charged and regular workcharged workmen, shall retire. The appointing authority, however, retains an absolute right to retire any workman except of the status of Class IV in the Government service on or after he has attained the age of 55 years if his work is not found to be thoroughly satisfactory. A corresponding right is also available to such a workman to retire on or after he has attained the age of 55 years.
Admittedly, the Petitioner was a regular workcharged workman and, as such, he could expect to continue m service until the age of 60 years, but on and November, 1989, he was intimated by the Corporation that he was "going to be retired from service on 13th December, 1989 (A.N.) from this Sub-Division, as per certified model Standing Order,--vide M.D. letter No. 29/57--837/Admn. V/WE-113, dated 6th October, 1986 at the age 58 years. Aggrieved against the same, the Petitioner represented to the Corporation for being allowed to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years, that is, 31st December, 1991. This representation was examinee- by the Superintending engineer, Workshop Circle of the Corporation, and after thorough consideration a recommendation was made to the Chief Engineer that the representation was a genuine one and deserved to be accepted as it was in accordance with the provisions of the certified standing Orders. A request was made to confirm tins position so that the retirement age for regular workcharged workmen was on the attainment of 60 years. However, the Managing Director of the Corporation oh 20th November, 1989, decided that the Petitioner was to be retired at the age of superannuation, that is, 58 years. Aggrieved against the same, the Petitioner has approached this Court claiming that he being a regular work charged workman had a right to continue in service upto the age of 60 years.
In the written statement, the Corporation has pleaded that the intention of Clause 16-A of the Standing Orders was to retire a Class IV employee at the age of 60 years and a Class III employee at the age of 58 years, and that as the Petitioner was a Class III employee, he was to be retired on attaining the age of 58 years.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.C. Mohanta, learned Advocate-General, Haryana, appearing on behalf of the Corporation, 1 am of the considered view that the contention of the Petitioner is correct and the writ petition deserves to be allowed; inasmuch as the Petitioner, who is a regular work-charged workman, shall retire from service of the Corporation on attaining the age of 60 years and not after attaining the age of 58 years, and the contrary view taken by the Corporation is wholly misconceived. A plain reading of Clause 16-A of the certified Standing Orders governing the conditions of service of the Petitioner and other employees similarly situated shows that all regular workmen shall retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation, that is, 58 years, AND regular workmen in Class IV service as well as temporary workcharged and regular workcharged workmen shall retire on attaining the age of 60 years. There is no warrant for reading this clause by taking out the last category of regular work charged workmen from the second set of employees who are to retire on attaining the age of 58 years and to induct it into the first category of regular workmen for retiring them on attaining the age of superannuation at 58 years. The mere fact that the Petitioner and other persons similarly situated happen to be Class III employees is no ground to deprive them of their right to continue in service upto the age of 60 years when they are admittedly regular workcharged workmen and not Class III employees on regular basis. Two distinct clauses have to be read separately and separate age of superannuation has to be attributed to them treating them as mutually exclusive clauses.
Mr. S.C. Monhanta, learned Advocate-General, Haryana, sought to justify the retirement of the Petitioner and other workmen similarly situated on the ground, that as the age of superannuation in the case of Class III employees of the State Government has been fixed at 58 years, the Petitioner and persons similarly situated serving in the Corporation could not be placed in a more advantageous position.
With respect, the plea taken by the learned Advocate-General is not applicable while interpreting Clause 16-A of the certified Standing Orders as firstly, the Petitioner as an employee of the Corporation, is not a Government servant and he is not governed by the statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and secondly, as the Petitioner is governed by Clause 16-A of the certified Standing Orders, he is covered in the category of "workman". In the case of various categories of workmen, there are numerous judicial pronouncements of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and other High Courts, where in the case of workmen of certain organizations, the age of superannuation has been upheld as 60 years, as against 58 years in the case of Government servants discharging the same duties and belonging to the same class. For authority, reference may be made to Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Hyderabad v. Joseph Bernad and Ors. 1982 (1) S.L.R. 617 Rattan Singh v. Union Territory Administation Chandigarh and Anr. 1984 (3) S.L.R. 817, Shyamdev v. Union of India and Ors. 1983 Lab. I.C. 483, Dr. Stirendra Kumar IShukla v. Union of India and Ors. 1986 Lab. I.C. 1516 and Union of India and Ors. v. L. Venkataraman etc. J.T. 1990 (2) S.C. 90.
Consequently, I allow this writ petition and hold that the Petitioner and other workmen belonging to the category of regular workcharged workmen shall retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation that is, 60 years and shall not be retired on attaining the age of 58 years. Since the Petitioner will be attaining the age of Superannuation on 31st December, 1991, and has been wrongly retired from service in pursuance of the impugned order dated 3rd November, 1989 (Annexure P-2), he shall be taken back in service forthwith, and he shall be entitled to all the arrears of salary and allowances, etc. to which he would have been entitled, had he not been retired from service in pursuance of the impugned order. As a consequence of the acceptance of this writ petition, the impugned communications dated 3rd November, 1989 (Annexure P-2) and 20th November, 1989 (Annexure P-5) shall stand quashed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.