RAMESH CHANDRA SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIVE petitioners came before this Court in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India king for the quashing of an order of retirement passed against them on 1-6-68, by the Superintendent of the Government Press. The petitioner No. 1 was a senior assistant and the petitioner No. 2 was an assistant overseer while the petitioner No. 3 was a head computer. The petitioners 4 and 5 were an overseer and a lower division clerk respectively.

(2.) MR. S. B. Nanda for the petitioners does not want to proceed with the application of the petitioner No. 5, Therefore, his claim in the writ petition is not considered. So far as the petitioner No. 4 Sri Soloman P. D. Sahu is concerned, Mr. Nanda wants leave to file a separate writ petition making appropriate allegations and impleading proper parties. There was an application before this Court during the pendency of the writ petition by one Dayanidhi Harichandan for permission to intervene on the allegation that he was a necessary party to the writ petition and he should, therefore, be heard. Mr. Nanda, therefore, asked us not to consider the case of the petitioner No. 4 at present and allow his grievance to be vindicated in a separate petition. We accordingly do not consider his case also in this petition. Under the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed to proceed in respect of the petitioners 1 to 3 only.

(3.) THE petitioners contend that they are either ministerial servants in permanent Government service on the material date or "workmen" within the provisions of Rule 71 (a) of the Orissa Service Code and accordingly are entitled to continue in service upto 60 years of age. They have, however, been asked to retire before reaching the age of superannuation. Since they are holders of permanent civil posts their services could not be terminated before the date of superannuation without complying with the requirement of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. It has been stated that the petitioner No. 1 was born in 1912 and if he was to serve until he attained the 60th year of age his superannuation would be due on 1-2-73. Similarly in respect of the petitioner No. 3 who was born on 22-6-1911 superannuation would be due on 22-6-71. So far as the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, his date of birth being 25-8-1910 his superannuation would have already been due on 25-2-70, but it is stated that in case the order of retirement is bound to be bad he would be entitled to the advantages due to him from his service.