BINODINI PATNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are four Writ Petitions filed by the Allopathy Medical Officers of Employees State Insurance (ESI) Scheme, Orissa to provide them the benefit of superannuation at the age of 60 years, which has been allowed to the Allopathy Medical Officers of the Department of Health and Family Welfare and for quashing of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in their respective Original Applications.

(2.) AT the very outset, it is necessary to mention here that Dr. Ganapati Pradhan, Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 15979 of 2005 had filed O.A.No. 1376 of 2004 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal for redressal of his grievances as mentioned above. As he was due to retire on 31.3.2005, he had moved Miscellaneous Application also for interim protection. When the same was not being considered by the Tribunal, he filed Writ Petition bearing number W.P. (C) No. 4212 of 2005 which was disposed of with the direction that the Petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service in full salary and emoluments apart from other benefits he is drawing till his Original Application is disposed of by the Tribunal or till he attains the age of 60 years whichever is earlier. Thereafter the State Government had filed the application for recalling of the said Order dated 29.3.2005. But the same was reaffirmed vide Order dated 19.8.2005 by this Court against which the State moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP(C) No. 22762 -63 of 2005 which was disposed of on 28.10.2005 with the following order. Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. We are not inclined to interfere in the matter as the impugned order is an interim one. However, it would be in the interest of the parties if the concerned O.A. (O.A. No. 1376/2004) is decided expeditiously. We request the Orissa Administrative Tribunal to dispose of the O.A. by the end of December, 2005. We notice that the High Court itself has observed to that effect. It goes without saying that the observations made by the High Court on the controversy pending before the tribunal are tentative in nature for the purpose of dealing with the interim application and the tribunal shall decide the case on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order.'

(3.) THE counter reply on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 was filed by the Under Secretary to Government, Finance Department. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are relevant and are liable to be perused. 4. The Finance Department amends the Orissa Service Code reflecting the policy decision of Government taken in different Departments of Government from time to time for specific purposes of specific category of employees in the State. It has no general applicability to all category employees of the State Government. Accordingly Finance Department have amended the Rule 71(a) of Orissa Service Code enhancing the superannuating age up to 60 years after the policy decision taken by the Government for specific category of employees i.e. Allopathic Doctors in the Health and Family Welfare Department in exigencies of public service and in the interest of public at large. It has no general applicability and not extended to Ayurvedic and Homeopathic doctors working under Health and Family Welfare Department.