Hemasagar Sahu vs State Of Odisha & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 8731 Ori

                                       1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


                  W.P(C) No.12487 OF 2016

Hemasagar Sahu                               .....                      Petitioner

                                                              Mr. A.K. Mohanty,
                                                                       Advocate
                                     Vs.
State of Odisha & Ors.                       .....                Opposite party

                                                        Mr. D.K. Mohanty, ASC

                                                              Mr. B. Sahoo, Adv.
                                                                       O.P. No.3


            CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                             ORDER

23.08.2021

Order No. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel and Mr. B. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.3-Belephara Municipal Council.

4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for enhancement of his retirement age from 58 years to 60 years being an employee of Belephara Municipal Council.

5. Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the provision contained under Rule 19 of the Orissa Municipal Corporation Rules 2004 (in short "2004 Rules") the date of retirement on superannuation of a Corporation employee shall be the date on which such employee attains the age of fifty-eight and sixty years respectively as applicable in case of their counterpart in Government service. The Government of Odisha has enhanced the retirement age of State Government Employees on superannuation pursuant to Resolution dated 28th June 2014 vide Annexure-5.

Therefore if the age of superannuation of the petitioner is to be taken into consideration at par with his counterpart of the State Government employee he is to retire on attaining the age of 60 years instead of 58 years in view of Resolution vide Annexure-3. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Premalata Panda v. State of Odisha and another (W.P.(C) No. 9279 of 2015 disposed of on 14.07.2015).

6. Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel stated that it is only applicable from the date of passing of the Resolution dated 07.02.2015 by the Government of Odisha Housing and Urban Development Department in Annexure-3 dated 07.02.2015 and therefore the Resolution having been passed on 07.02.2015 the same has been extended prospectively from the date of issuance of Resolution. Therefore the benefit should not be admissible to the petitioner.

7. Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the petitioner was admittedly an employee of the Belephara Municipal Council and as such the Rule 19 (1) of the 2004 Rules is applicable to the petitioner. Rule 19(1) of the 2004 Rules states as follows:

"19. Date of Superannuation:- (1) The date of retirement on superannuation of a Corporation employee shall be the date on which such employee attains the age of fifty-eight and sixty years respectively as applicable in case of their counterpart in Government service."

8. In view of the provision contained under Rule 19(1) of the 2004 Rules, since the retirement age on superannuation of the petitioner is applicable to his counterparts to the State Government employee and the retirement age of the State Government employee has been enhanced from 58 years to 60 years by virtue of the resolution passed in Annexure-3 that ipso facto can apply to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing

Counsel that the Resolution passed by the Government of Odisha Housing and Urban Development Department dated 07.02.2015 is applicable prospectively has no meaning at all. In that view of the matter the Resolution dated 7.2.2015 so far as the employees of Belephara Municipal Council are concerned, is not applicable in view of the fact that they are to be treated at par with their counterpart in the State Government employees pursuant to the Resolution dated 28.06.2014 vide Annexure-5. Similar view has also been taken by this Court in Pramalata Panda (Supra).

9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in the light of the observation and direction made by this Court in Pramalata Panda (Supra).

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

Alok (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE