NIMAI CHARAN PANI Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was originally appointed as a conductor under the erstwhile Orissa Road Transport Company Limited (for short "ORTC Ltd.") on 20.07.1981 and continued as such, when the ORTC Ltd. was acquired by Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (OSRTC) under Section 19(2) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 with effect from 16.08.1990. On acquisition of ORTC Ltd. by the OSRTC, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between ORTC Ltd. and OSRTC on 23.06.1990. Clause-15(b) of the MOU clearly provided that the terms and conditions of service of the personnel (employees) of the taken-over ORTC Ltd. would be the same as existed in the Certified Standing Orders, 1974 on 16.08.1990, when ORTC Ltd. was acquired by OSRTC, and they would enjoy all such benefits. But, however, in exercise of powers conferred under Clause-13(1)(a) and 13(2)(e) of the Certified Standing Orders, 1974, the petitioner was made to retire from service, in the public interest, with effect from 31.12.0998 after attaining the age of 50/55 years or 30 years of qualifying service, whichever is earlier, by paying three months salary in lieu of notice of three months, vide office order dated 31.12.1998 (Annexure- 1), hence this application.

(2.) Mr. K.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the reason for retirement, i.e., "in the public interest", as mentioned in the impugned order at Annexure-1 dated 31.11998 and provided in Clause-13.1(a) and 13(2)(e) of the Certified Standing Orders, 1974, is no reason at all in the eye of law and, as such, being contrary to the settled position of law the impugned order is accordingly liable to be quashed.

(3.) Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the OSRTC, by supporting the order of retirement at Annexure-1, argued with vehemence that the retirement, being made in public interest, is wholly and fully justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court at this stage. He thus contended that the petitioner, having been retired in the year 1998 and in the meantime nineteen years having been elapsed, no relief can be granted to him and, therefore, the writ application is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is further contended that in respect of a particular issue if the Certified Standing Order is silent and/or provisions are not available, the Rules and Regulations applicable to the government employees shall be made applicable. In the instant case, even though the Certified Standing Orders, 1974 prescribe provisions for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, but the provision for premature retirement of the employees on review of past incidents has not been specifically enumerated. Therefore, the Rules applicable to the government employees are applicable to the petitioner. Accordingly, circular no.162(c) dated 02.02.1995 was issued to give effect to the provisions of compulsory retirement. If action has been taken in consonance with the said provisions, then no fault can be found with the OSRTC for taking such action.