AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Reddeppa Reddi, J.—These five writ petitions are directed against the common order dated 5-12-1997 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad Bench, at Hyderabad in OANos.1434, 1435, 1436, 1437 and 1438 of 1997 holding that the orders dated 20-10-97 of the Administrative Officer, Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC), Hyderabad, the second petitioner herein deciding to superannuate the respondent in each writ petition, who are working as drivers in NFC, Hyderabad, on their attaining the age of 58 years, is bad and directing the petitioners to continue them (the applicants in OAs) in service till the afternoon of the last day of the month in which they attain the age of 60 years.
The issue whether the age of superannuation of the drivers working in NFCs is 58 years or 60 years remains unsolved forever 15 years. As far as the drivers employed in NFC at Hyderabad are concerned, this is the third round of litigation. It started in the year 1983 when two drivers filed WP Nos.4508 and 4603 of 1983 before this Court questioning the action of the petitioners superannuating their service on their attaining the age of 58 years. Their plea was that they were the workmen falling within the ambit of Rule 56(b) of the Fundamental Rules and thus they were entitled to continue in service till they attained the age of 60 years. Rama Rao, J having accepted their plea allowed the writ petitions by order dated 15-3-1984. WA Nos.1069/84 and 1075/84 filed by the petitioners herein against the said order were dismissed as infructuous by a Division Bench of this Court on 15-12-1987. Again in the year 1987 when one Sri B.R. Shivam, a driver, was sought to be retired by the petitioners on his attaining the age of 58 years, he filed OA No.807/87 before the CAT, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad. The Tribunal followed the decision of this Court in WP Nos.4508 and 4603 of 1983 and allowed the application by order dated 21-10-1989. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein carried the matter to Supreme Court by way of petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.2037/90; but the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 19-3-1990. Seven years thereafter on the basis of clarification said to have been issued by the Department of Atomic Energy to the effect that in the absence of any instructions from the Government about bringing the drivers under FR 56(b) NFC has to retire the drivers on their attaining the age of 58 years, the second petitioner herein passed orders dated 20-10-1997 referred to supra, which were held to be bad by the impugned order.
The CAT, Jodhpur Bench at Jodhpur in OA No.9/93, dated 26-5-1993 having followed the judgment dated 24-10-1989 of the Hyderabad Bench in OA No.807/87, directed that all the drivers working in NFC be retired at the age of 60 years. The Bench further directed that all other persons who are similarly situated shall also be entitled for the same benefit Though they have not approached the Court. The Madras Bench at CAT also took the same view in OA Nos.446, 521 and 551 of 1997 disposed of on 27-6-1997. However, in OANo.416/95, dated 19-9-1997 a different view was taken by Ahemdabad Bench of the CAT in respect of same category of employees employed in Heavy Water Plant of the Department of Atomic Energy, Baroda. Likewise, the Mumbai Bench of the CAT took the view in OA-No. 1291/95 that Watchman-cum-Fireman employed in the Nuclear Power Corporation, Tarapur Atomic Power Station, Tarapur, was liable to be superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years. Thus, there is divergence of opinion amongst the different Benches of the CAT on this aspect.
Sri B. Adinamyana Rao, learned senior Standing Counsel for the-Central Government, submits tliat the point at issue is no longer rex Integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa and Others Vs. Adwait Charan Mohanty and Others, . On that score, he maintains that the decisions of this Court in WP Nos.4508 and 4603 of 1983 and that of the Jodhpur and Chennai Benches of the CAT referred to supra are no longer good law. In contra, Sri P.N.A. Christian, learned Counsel for the respondents would contend that the principle enunciated in Mohanty ''s case (supra), which deals with Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code, cannot be extended to those governed by FR 56(b). It is also his submission that the drivers working in NFC are workmen, coming within the ambit of FR 56(b) and they are, therefore, entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. It is his further submission that in view of the decisions of this Court in WP Nos.4508 and 4603 of 1983, dated 15-3-1984 and that of Hyderabad Bench of the CAt in OANo.807/87, dated 21-10-1989, which have become final, it is not permissible for the petitioners to reopen the issue of retirement age of drivers in NFC merely on the basis of some administrative instructions said to have been issued by the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, New Delhi,
There is no dispute that all the respondents/employees are the drivers working in NFC and they are governed by FR & SR & CCS (CCA) Rules. There is also no dispute that they come under Group ''C'' Category of personnel as classified in CCS (CCA) Rules. Further, it is not disputed before us that NFC is an industrial or workcharged establishment. Therefore, the only controversy is whether respondents/employees are workmen within the meaning of clause (b) of FR 56 which reads as under:
"A workman who is governed by these rules shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years.
Note :--In this clause, a workman means a highly skilled, skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled artisan employed on a monthly rate of pay in an industrial or workcharged establishment."
In Prithipal Singh Vs. Union of India, , the Apex Court had an occasion to consider two aspects-(1) the tests an employee has to satisfy to be a ''workman'' under clause (b) of FR 56 and (2) whether a staff car driver in the Ministry of Surface and Transport (Transport Wing), Government of India, was a workman or not. Kuldip Singh, J speaking for the Court, observed on the first aspect that the employee
"has to satisfy two conditions to be a ''workman'' under the above rule. He has to be an ''artisan'' and also be employed in an ''industrial'' or work-charged establishment."
The finding of His Lordship on the second aspect is as under :
"A driver of staff car is undoubtedly a skilled or semi-skilled person. He has to use his whole body specially his hands and feet to drive the vehicle. The definition of word ''artisan'' is wide enough to include a driver of a car."
On the aspect as to the tests an employee has to satisfy to be a workman under clause (b) of FR 56, reference may be made to the following observation of the Apex Court in Chandigarh Administration v. Mehar Singh :
"The question whether an employee is a ''workman'' within the meaning of clause (b) of FR 56 has to be considered with reference to the nature of his work. Clause (b) has to be construed with reference to the statutory Note appended thereto. The Note says that a workman who is an artisan employed on a monthly rate of pay in an industrial or work-charged establishment qualifies for the purpose of clause (b). It does not matter whether the workman is a skilled or a semi-skilled or an unskilled artisan. All artisans, who are workmen, whether skilled or otherwise qualify for the benefit of clause (b), provided they are employed on a monthly rate of pay in an industrial or work-charged establishment. The expression ''artisan'' has, therefore, to be understood as widely as possible and without regard to his skill. Nevertheless, he must be both a workman and an artisan of some kind..... (Para 6).
The above passage was approvingly quoted by a Bench of 3 Judges of the Apex Court in Chandigarh Administration and another Vs. Ajit Singh and another, .
What is deducible from the above decisions may be summarised as under : To be a workman within the meaning of FR 56(b) an employee has to be an artisan employed on a monthly rate of pay in an industrial or workcharged establishment. He may be a skilled, a semi-skilled or an unskilled artisan. But, necessarily he must be an artisan, which expression has to be construed liberally, regardless of his or her skill. A driver of a heavy or light motor vehicle has to be regarded as a skilled or an unskilled artisan.
The respondent in each of the writ petitions is either a heavy vehicle driver or a light vehicle driver. Thus, they have to be regarded as artisans, either skilled or unskilled. It follows, they are workmen within the meaning of FR 56(b). However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that even though they are workmen/artisans they shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years as they belong to group''C'' service. He is emphatic that workmen/artisans who come under group ''D'' alone are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. To buttress his submission he invited our attention to the following observation of the Apex Court in Mohanty ''s case (supra):
"Even an artisan-workman who was promoted or appointed to Class III service be it gazetted or non-gazetted shall retire on completion of 58 years of age."
The above observation has been made while interpreting Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Civil Service Code. We notice that the provisions of Rule 71 (a) are not identical in terms with FR 56(a) (b) and (e). Moreover, it appears that one important aspect was not brought to the notice of the Apex Court in Mohanty''s case. That is, the age of superannuation of every Class IV employee is 60 years irrespective of the fact whether he is a workman-artisan or not and the benefit of the age of superannuation at 60 is extended to workmen-artisans, even though they do not belong to the category of Class IV service. In other words, a Class IV employee need not be a workman-artisan to claim the benefit of the age of superannuation at 60. At any rate, there can be no dispute about this position in relation to workmen governed by FR 56. To have a clear picture of the same, the provisions of FR 56(a), (b) and (c) are extracted below:
"FR 56(a) : Except as otherwise provided in this rule, every Government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty-eight years.
(b) A workman who is governed by these rules shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years.
Note :-In this clause, a workman means a highly skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled artisan employed on a monthly rate of pay in an industrial or workcharged establishment.
(e) A Government servant in Class IV service or post shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years :
Provided that a Class IV employee of the Secretariat Security Force who initially enters service on or after the 15th day of September, 1969, shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty-eight years.''''
It is clear front the reading of clause (a) together with clause (c) that clause (a) is applicable only to such class or category of services other than Class IV service. It is also clear that clause (b), dealing the age of retirement of a workman, has no application to Class IV employees governed by clause (e). In this view of the matter, we are unable to pursuade ourselves to adopt the principle enunciated in Mohanty''s case (supra) to the workman covered by FR 56(b) and accept the plea of the petitioner that the respondents are not entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years for the simple reason that they fall under Group C service, though they satisfy the tests prescribed in the note appended to FR 56(b).
That apart, we do find considerable force in the alternative submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents that it is not permissible for the petitioners to reopen the issue of retirement age of drivers in NFC in view of the decisions of this Court in WP Nos.4508 and 4603 of 1983, dated 15-3-1984 and that of Hyderabad Bench of CAT in OANo.807/87, dated 21-10-89 which have become final. There is no dispute that the above decisions have been rendered on merits and they have become final. It is not the case of the petitioners that there is any change in the statutory provisions relating to retirement age of drivers in NFC. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that tile petitioner is totally unjustified in deciding to retire the respondent in each petition on his attaining the age of 58 years.
For the aforesaid reasons, we find no case for interference with the impugned orders. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.