ASHOK KUMAR DASH Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.(C) No.7460 of 2019, in which the petitioner is working as a Senior Stenographer in the office of the OISIP, JICA, has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board (OWSSB) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') has been constituted under Orissa Act 12 of 1991, i.e., the Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1991"), which was published in the Orissa Gazette notification dated 4th June, 1991. For regulating the service conditions of the employees of the Board, no separate rules have been framed. After enactment of the Act, 1991, Housing and Urban Development Department issued a notification on 16.08.1993 framing regulation which is called as "Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations, 1992"). So far as salaries, allowances and conditions of service of the of the employees of the Board are concerned, the same are governed under clause-12 of the Regulations, 1992, which clearly provide that the employees are governed by the rules and regulations framed at par with the State government employees. The petitioners were appointed by the Board in exercise of powers conferred under Section 9(1) of the Act, 1991 read with clause-21(1) of the Regulations, 1992. As such, the petitioners were discharging their duties and responsibilities assigned to them by the Board.

(3.) Mr. N. Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners, being the employees of the Board, in absence of service rules regulating their service conditions, are to be regulated under the Orissa Service Code and, accordingly, they have been receiving salaries and other allowances as per the provisions of Orissa Service Code which is applicable to the respective petitioners in view of clause-12 of the Regulations 1992. It is further contended that in view of the amendment made to Rule-71(a) of the Orissa Service Code, there is absolutely no requirement to direct the petitioners to retire at the age of 58 years, rather the resolution passed by the Government on 28.06.2014 enhancing the age of superannuation of the State Government employees from 58 to 60 years, will ipso facto apply on the employees of the Board and, as such, the same does not require any recommendation or approval of the Government. Consequentially, the impugned notice should not have been issued for superannuation of the petitioners on attaining the age of 58 years on the basis of pre-amended Rule-71(a) of the Orissa Service Code. It is further contended that since in respect of the employees of other public sector undertakings, namely, Orissa Small Scale Industries Limited, the benefit has already been extended from the date of notification itself, the employees of the Board should not have been discriminated in any manner whatsoever and, as such, the petitioners should not have been asked to retire, when their counterparts in the government are still continuing in service, even though the petitioners retired on the basis of pre-amended Rule-71(a) of the Orissa Service Code. It is further contended that in absence of any rules regulating the service conditions of the employees of the Board, no approval would be necessary for adopting the amendment made to the Orissa Service Code and, therefore, the age of superannuation of the employees of the Board is deemed to have been enhanced from the date such benefit was granted to the employees of the State Government. Consequentially, he seeks for quashing of the impugned notices issued to the respective petitioners for retirement on attaining the age of 58 years, and claims that they should be extended the benefits of continuance in service till they attain the age of 60 years along with consequential service and financial benefits as due and admissible to them in accordance with law.