DIGAMBAR BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, in all these writ petitions, are the employees of Orissa Renewable Energy Development Agency (for short "OREDA"). They have approached this Court seeking for a common relief. Therefore, these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The background facts, for which the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court, are succinctly stated as follows:

(3.) Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. J.P. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioners at serial no.6 to 8 of the above table specifically urged that since the State Government in its wisdom decided to enhance the retirement age of its employees from 58 to 60 years, pursuant to resolution dated 28.06.2014, by amending the Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code and also OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and, consequentially, pursuant to resolution dated 02.08.2014, the State Government in its Public Enterprises Department decided to extend such benefits to the employees of the PSUs which was implemented immediately and, such policy decision having been communicated to the Science and Technology Department which is the administrative department of OREDA, the non-extension of such benefit to the employees of the OREDA from the date, i.e., 02.08.2014 the Government in Public Enterprises Department decided by passing a resolution to extend such benefits to the PSUs amounts to arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power and also discriminatory. It is contended that although OREDA has not been included in the list of PSUs maintained by the Government, for which apparently the resolution dated 02.08.2014 passed by the Government in Public Enterprises Department issuing direction to the PSUs to enhance the retirement age from 58 to 60 years has not been made applicable to it, as the nature of work discharged by OREDA categorically constitute "public utility service", it should have been treated as a PSU and the benefits should have been extended from the date of passing of resolution by the State Government, i.e., with effect from 02.08.2014, as the similar benefits have already been extended by the State Government to the employees of PSUs. Considering the matter in proper perspective, non-extension of such benefit in the name of nonamendment of the service rule applicable to the OREDA employees and non-receipt of administrative approval from the Administrative Department is absolutely a fallacy and, as such, is contrary to the provisions of law and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments in the Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Association of Natural Gas Consuming Industries of Gujarat, 1990 AIR(SC) 1851; Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan, 2005 6 SCC 657; Leelabai Gajanan Pansare v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2008 9 SCC 720; Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2015 12 SCC 611; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dayanand Chakrawarty, 2013 7 SCC 595; Premalata Panda v. State of Odisha, 2015 2 OrissaLR 214 and Sukanta Kumar Das v. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No. 4024 of 2016 disposed of on 08.04.2016.