PRAFULLA KUMAR DUTTA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a driver of the State Transport Service.

(2.) VARIOUS contentions were taken in the Writ Petition. But during the hearing of the application, Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner, confined his submissions to only one point which is to the following effect. According to him, the State Transport Service which is wholly owned by the State of Orissa, opposite party No. 1 is an industrial undertaking. The petitioner who joined service as a driver on 1-12-58 and has been continuing as such is a "workman" as defined in the Note to Rule 71 (a) of the Orissa Service Code. It is not disputed that the definition itself is a statutory one being a part of the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution by the Governor of Orissa. The further submission of Mr. Nanda is that the Petitioner would ordinarily be retained in service upto the age of 60 years and is liable to be retired at any time after his attaining the age of 55 years with a month's notice-only on the ground of impaired health or of being negligent or inefficient in the discharge of his duties. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 19-12-69 by the District Transport Manager of the State Transport Service at Baripada that as the petitioner would complete the age of 55 years on 8-2-70 he was directed to retire on superannuation with effect from the afternoon of that day. . Admittedly no action has been contemplated against the petitioner on the footing that he has impaired health or he is negligent or inefficient in the discharge of his duties. Mr. Nanda, therefore, contends that the petitioner is to be retained in service upto the 60th year and he is being prematurely retired. This action in prematurely retiring the petitioner who is a permanent servant under the State Government of Orissa in the State Transport service is sought to be challenged as being contrary to law.

(3.) MR. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Transport Department, appearing for the opposite parties challenges the contention that the petitioner is a workman and as such his case is not covered under Rule 71 (a) of the Orissa Service Code.