PURNA CHANDRA PRADHAN Vs. CESCO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was an erstwhile employee of Orissa State Electricity Board (OSEB) and after reformation whose services were placed under the opposite parties, has filed this writ petition to quash office order dated 18.07.2003 in Annexure-1 issued by opposite party no.3 retiring him from service on completion of 30 years of service/already attained the age of 50 years under CESCO, w.e.f.31.07.2003 A.N. paying him 3 months' wage/salary in lieu of 3 months' notice amounting to Rs.27,603/-, as per Regulation-3 of OSEB Employees Age of Retirement Regulation, 1979 applicable to CESCO under the Transfer Scheme Rules, 1998.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner joined as Lineman-C on 22.04.1970 in the establishment of erstwhile Orissa State Electricity Board. After completing only 9 years of service, he sustained electric burn, while discharging his official duty on 13.07.1979. Consequentially, he faced amputation of both the arms and discharged from S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack on 28.04.1979. But, he was allowed to continue in service even though he lost two limbs of his body for the cause of the establishment. After Orissa Reforms Act came into force, OSEB undergone reformation and accordingly, the petitioner continued under the opposite parties. In Regulation-3 of OSEB Employees Age of Retirement Regulation, 1979 ( in short "Regulation 1979") which was framed in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (c) of Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the age of retirement of an employee has been specified. While continuing in service under the opposite parties, as per Transfer and Reforms principle, the service benefits are admissible to the petitioner, cannot be disadvantage to him. Therefore, as per the provisions contained in Regulation 1979, the petitioner was to continue till he attained the age of retirement. But, while he was so continuing, he received an office order dated 18.07.2003 retiring him from service with effect from 31.07.2003 A.N. on completion of 30 years of service/already attained the age of 50 years, taking recourse to the provisions laid down under Regulation-3 of Regulation, 1979, which is applicable to CESCO under the Transfer Scheme Rules, 1998 paying 3 months' wage/salary in lieu of 3 months' notice amounting to Rs.27,603/-. Hence this application.

(3.) Miss. G. Patra, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. P. Acharya, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 18.07.2003 passed by the authority concerned is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles-14, 16 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that before retirement of the petitioner, the basic requirement, i.e., the principle of natural justice has not been complied with. As such, the petitioner has been prematurely retired from service though he had further 7 years of service left for superannuation. While superannuating the petitioner from service, the authority lost sight of the fact that he had lost two valuable limbs and he was permanently incapacitated for the cause of the opposite parties. Therefore, retiring him prematurely on completion of 30 years service/already attained the age of 50 years cannot have justification, save and except the petitioner should have been allowed to continue till he attained the age of retirement as per Regulation-3 of Regulation 1979. She further contended that due to incapacitation of the petitioner, he was allowed to continue in service on compassionate ground till superannuation and he was advised neither to opt for Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, as was being granted to other employees of the opposite parties, nor to claim compensation under the Workmens' Compensation Act, though he was otherwise entitled to claim adequate compensation for loss of two limbs depending upon the degree of incapacitation. The petitioner did not make any such claim, as because the employer had given assurance that he would continue in service till normal age of superannuation. The date of birth of the petitioner being 04.08.1951, normally he should have retired from service w.e.f. 31.08.2009. But, the action of the authorities in prematurely retiring the petitioner from service by issuing office order dated 18.07.2003, when he had to undergo further 7 years of service, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law. Hence, the petitioner seeks for quashing of the office order dated 18.07.2003.