Orissa High Court
Chief Executive vs Krushna Chandra Maharana And on 22 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. Nos.306, 305, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 316,
317, 318 and 502 of 2017.
W.A. No.306 of 2017
Chief Executive, Odisha Renewable Appellant
....
Energy Development Agency
-versus-
Krushna Chandra Maharana and .... Respondents
Another
W.A. No.305 of 2017
Chief Executive, Odisha Renewable Appellant
....
Energy Development Agency
-versus-
Digambar Behera and Others .... Respondents
W.A. No.307 of 2017
Chief Executive, Odisha Renewable Appellant
....
Energy Development Agency
-versus-
Thabir Mohan Nayak and Another .... Respondents
W.A. No.308 of 2017
Chief Executive, Odisha Renewable Appellant
....
Energy Development Agency
-versus-
Arjun Maharana and Another .... Respondents
W.A. No.309 of 2017
Chief Executive, Odisha Renewable Appellant
....
Energy Development Agency
-versus-
Umesh Chandra Nayak and Another .... Respondents
Page 1 of 9
W.A. No.310 of 2017
Chief Executive, Odisha Renewable Appellants
....
Energy Development Agency and
Another
-versus-
Balaram Patra and Another .... Respondents
W.A. No.311 of 2017
Chief Executive, Odisha Renewable Appellants
....
Energy Development Agency and
Another
-versus-
Harihar Panda and Another .... Respondents
W.A. No.312 of 2017
Chief Executive, Odisha Renewable Appellants
....
Energy Development Agency and
Another
-versus-
Muralidhar Panda and Another .... Respondents
W.A. No.316 of 2017
Chief Executive, Odisha Renewable Appellants
....
Energy Development Agency and
Another
-versus-
Bighneswar Mohanta and Another .... Respondents
W.A. No.317 of 2017
Chief Executive, Odisha Renewable Appellants
....
Energy Development Agency and
Another
-versus-
Pulin Chandra Barai and Another .... Respondents
W.A. No.318 of 2017
Chief Executive, Odisha Renewable Appellants
....
Energy Development Agency and
Another
Page 2 of 9
-versus-
Harekrushna Pradhan and Another .... Respondents
AND
W.A. No.502 of 2017
Chief Executive, Odisha Renewable Appellants
....
Energy Development Agency and
Another
-versus-
Gopabandhu Das .... Respondents
Advocates appeared in these cases:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bijay Ku. Dash, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Pami Rath, Advocate
(In W.A. No.306 of 2017)
Mr. A. Sahoo, Advocate
(In W.A. Nos.305, 307, 308,
310 and 311 of 2017)
Mr. Janaki Kanta Mohapatra
Advocate (In W.A. No.502 of 2017)
Mrs. Saswata Pattnaik
Addl. Govt. Advocate (State)
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 22.11.2021
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ
04. 1. The writ appeals by the Odisha Renewable Energy
Development Agency (OREDA) are directed against the common
judgment dated 27th July, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge
in the writ appeals filed against the present Appellant by its
employees. There were 12 such writ petitions and the impugned
judgment is common to all 12 petitions. Correspondingly the
OREDA has filed these 12 appeals which involve the same
questions and therefore, are being disposed of by this common
judgment.
2. The issue before the learned Single Judge was whether the
Respondent employees of OREDA were justified in seeking a
mandamus that their age of retirement should be extended from 58
to 60 years consistent with the policy decision taken by the State
of Odisha, Department of Public Enterprises (DPE), by the
resolution dated 2nd August, 2014 which was applicable to all
Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs).
3. It must be noted at the outset that since there was no interim
order passed during the pendency of the writ petitions, the
employees who had filed writ petitions (some prior to their
retirement and some after) had already attained the enhanced age
of superannuation of 60 years. It transpired that even during the
pendency of the writ petitions by letter dated 30th March, 2016 of
the Government of Odisha communicated to Chief Executive,
OREDA approving the proposal of the enhanced superannuation
age of OREDA employees from 58 to 60 years. It was mentioned
that the said letter that the decision had the concurrence of the
Finance Department by letter dated 4th March, 2016. It was stated
that the decision would be effective from the date of issuance of
the letter i.e. 30th March, 2016. There upon Rule 51(2) OREDA
Service Rules, 1997 ('Rules') was amended enhancing the age of
superannuation from 58 to 60 years.
4. In the writ petitions, on the basis of the pleadings, the following
three issues were framed by the learned Single Judge for
determination:
"(i) Whether OREDA is a PSU and, if so, whether
resolution dated 02.08.2014 of the Government in
Public Enterprises Department is applicable to it?
(ii) Whether the petitioners should be extended with
the benefit of retirement age from 58 to 60 years at
par with their counterparts in similarly situated
organizations under the administrative control of the
Science and Technology Department?
(iii) If so, what relief the petitioners are entitled to?"
5. As regards Issue (i), the learned Single Judge came to the
conclusion, primarily on the basis of the decision in Leelabai
Gajanan Pansare v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2008) 9
SCC 720 that OREDA was essentially a 'Public Utility Service'
and had all the characteristics of a PSU working for the benefit of
the "public at large". On this basis it was concluded that the Rules
and Regulations applicable to the State Government employees
and its PSUs were applicable to OREDA.
6. On Issue (ii), the learned Single Judge held that the employees
of OREDA were entitled to the benefit of enhancement of
retirement age pursuant to the resolution dated 28th June, 2014 of
the Finance Department as well as the resolution dated 2nd August,
2014 of the DPE.
7. As regards Issue (iii), the learned Single Judge issued the
following directions:
"(a)The Petitioners, who had approached this
Court before completion of 58 years of age and
during pendency of the writ petition were made to
retire on attaining the age of 58 years, as well as
who had approached this Court after retirement on
attaining 58 years of age, the opposite party No.3-
OREDA is directed to bring them back into service
forthwith, if they have not attained the age of 60
years, and allow them to continue till they attain
the age of 60 years and grant all the consequential
service and financial benefits as due and
admissible to them in accordance with law.
(b) The petitioners, who had approached this Court
after retirement on attaining the age of
superannuation and in the meantime have attained
the age of 60 years, shall not be entitled for arrears
of salary. However, they will be deemed to be
continuing in service up to the age of 60 years. In
their case, the OREDA shall treat their age of
superannuation as 60 years, fix the pay accordingly
and re-fix the retirement benefits like pension,
gratuity etc. On such calculation, they shall be
entitled to arrears of retirement benefits after
adjusting the amount already paid.
(c) Needless to say that the arrears of salary and
arrears of retirement benefits should be paid to
such employees within a period of six months from
the date of receipt of copy of the judgment."
8. While directing to issue notice in the present appeals on 1st
March, 2019 this Court stayed the operation of the impugned
judgment of the learned Single Judge.
9. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Bijay Kumar Dash,
learned counsel appearing for OREDA, Mrs. Pami Rath, learned
counsel appearing for the Respondents.
10. On issue (i), Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the OREDA sought
to argue that the letter by the Additional Secretary to Government
in the Science and Technology Department on 9th December, 2016
to the Chief Executive, OREDA clarifying that OREDA is not a
PSU and is not covered by the resolutions of the DPE was not
taken into account by the learned Single Judge. He also referred to
noting on the file of the Science and Technology Department to
the same effect. Secondly, he submitted that with the Government
finally agreeing to extend the benefit of the enhanced
superannuation age to the employees of OREDA only with effect
from 30th March 2016, there could be no retrospective extension of
the benefit to the employees who had already retired by then.
11. Mrs. Pami Rath, learned counsel for the Respondents pointed
out that the question whether the OREDA is a PSU and, therefore,
whether its employees should have the benefit of the enhanced
superannuation age has now been rendered academic with the
Government itself extending the benefit with effect from 30th
March, 2016. She further pointed out that since there was no
interim order during the pendency of the writ petitions all of the
writ Petitioners in fact superannuated at the age of 58 years and
therefore, none of them had the benefit of being continued in
service till they reached the age of 60 years. As a result, none of
the 11 employees who approached the Court for the reliefs could
get the arrears of salary for that period. Therefore, the only benefit
ensuing from the judgment of the learned Single Judge was
reworking of the pension and family pension. She accordingly
submitted that with there being no prospect of the judgment of the
learned Single Judge constituting a precedent and since it
concerned only 12 employees of the OREDA, this Court should
not interfere.
12. Having considered the above submissions, the Court is of the
view that the central issue whether the employees of OREDA are
entitled to seek the benefit of enhancement of the age of
superannuation from 58 to 60 years on par with the employees of
the State Government and other State Governments PSUs has been
rendered academic on account of the developments noted
hereinbefore which occurred during the pendency of the writ
petitions before the learned Single Judge. Consequently, this Court
is not required to examine whether in fact OREDA is a PSU or
not. However, this is possible that the said question might arise in
the context of some other autonomous body like the OREDA
where the question of extension to its employees of the benefits
available to the State Government employees might arise. The
Court is of the view that the facts relevant to each such
autonomous body would have to be considered before arriving at
the answer to such question. Consequently, the Court considers it
appropriate to hold that the impugned judgment of the learned
Single Judge which is challenged in these appeals will not
constitute a precedent in the event such question arises in future.
13. The Court notes that as far as OREDA is concerned, the
impugned judgment fairly balances the equities and the only relief
granted to its employees who had to retire on attaining the age of
58 years and who are 11 in number, is the reworking of their
pension on the basis that the age of superannuation should be
treated as 60 years. Considering that none of them had the benefit
of arrears salary and only a limited relief has been granted, this
Court does not consider it appropriate to interfere with the
impugned order of the learned Single Judge.
14. With the above observations, the writ appeals are disposed of.
15. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
S.K. Jena/P.A.
