Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 395 (ORI)

Gopal Chandra Sahoo v. State of Orissa

2016-05-18

A.K.RATH

body2016
Judgment : Dr. A.K.Rath, J The petitioner, a quondam employee of Orissa Cooperative Housing Corporation Limited, assails the order no.4127 dated 19.11.2014, vide Annexure-5, passed by the Managing Director, Orissa Cooperative Housing Corporation Limited. By the said order, the petitioner was allowed to retire from service on 30.11.2014 on attaining 58 years of age. 2. Sans details, the case of the petitioner is that he was an employee of the Orissa Cooperative Housing Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”). He retired from service on 31.7.2014 on attaining 58 years of age of superannuation. By resolution no.19408 dated 28.6.2014, vide Annexure-1, the Government of Orissa have enhanced the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years. Pursuant to the same, the Managing Director of the Corporation, opposite party no.4, on 23.7.2014, vide Annexure-2, passed an office order enhancing the age of the employees of the Corporation from 58 years to 60 years. Opposite party no.4 issued a letter on 30.7.2014, vide Annexure-3, to the petitioner extending the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years. He was allowed to work. On 29.9.2014, the Registrar, Cooperative Society, in exercise of the power under Section 33-A of the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) approved the decision of the Government to enhance the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years. Thereafter, opposite party no.4 passed an order on 19.11.2014, vide Annexure-5, reducing the age of retirement of the petitioner from 58 years to 60 years and allowed him to retire from the Corporation by 30.11.2014. 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no.4. It is stated that the petitioner was the employee of the Corporation. The service condition of the employees of the Corporation is regulated by the Orissa Cooperative Housing Corporation Officers and Staff Service Rules, 1986 framed under Section 33-A(b) of the Act. The same was approved by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Under Section 33-A of the Act, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies shall fix the number and designation of the employees to be governed by the Cooperative Societies and make rules, regulating the qualification, remuneration, allowance and other conditions of services of such employees. The Government of Orissa have enhanced the retirement age of the State Government employees from 58 years to 60 years. The Corporation is a separate entity. The Government of Orissa have enhanced the retirement age of the State Government employees from 58 years to 60 years. The Corporation is a separate entity. The resolution of the State Government enhancing the age of retirement does not automatically applicable to the employees of the Corporation. It requires the decision of the Registrar. The Registrar by order dated 29.9.2014 enhanced the age of retirement of the employees of all the Cooperative Societies except the staff of Credit Cooperative Societies to 60 years with a direction that the said decision shall come into force with immediate effect from 29.9.2014. The retirement age of the cooperative employees was enhanced much after the date of retirement of the petitioner. 4. Heard Mr. B.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the opposite parties 1 to 3 and Mr. S.C. Dash, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4. 5. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the State of Orissa took a policy decision to enhance the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years. Accordingly, a resolution was issued on 28.6.2014, vide Annexure-1. The retirement age of the employees of the Corporation was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years. Thereafter, by order dated 30.7.2014, vide Annexure-3, the opposite party no.4 enhanced the retirement age of the petitioner from 58 years to 60 years and allowed him to work. But then, by order dated 19.11.2014, opposite party no.4 recalled the said order and reduced the retirement age of the petitioner from 60 years to 58 years without any rhyme or reason. He further submitted that the order dated 19.11.2014 was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and as such bad in law. 6. Per contra Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate and Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4, supported the impugned order. 7. An identical matter came up for consideration before this Court in Sukanta Chandra Mohanty v. State of Orissa and others, 2015 (I) OLR 832 . In the said case, the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in the Odisha Police Cooperative Syndicate, Cuttack, a registered society. The condition of service of the employees of the societies is governed under the Rule, namely, Staff Service Rules of Orissa Police Cooperative Syndicate, 1990 (in short, “the Rules”). In the said case, the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in the Odisha Police Cooperative Syndicate, Cuttack, a registered society. The condition of service of the employees of the societies is governed under the Rule, namely, Staff Service Rules of Orissa Police Cooperative Syndicate, 1990 (in short, “the Rules”). The age of retirement of the employees has been prescribed as 58 years under the Rules. The notice was issued on 21.7.2014 relieving him from service in the afternoon of 31.8.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation. Prior to the said notice, the Government of Orissa in Finance Department issued a resolution on 28.6.2014 enhancing the retirement age of the State Government employees on superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. In view of the said resolution, the petitioner asserted that similar benefits be extended to the employees of the society enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. This Court in paragraph 6 of the report held thus : “6. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, the admitted fact is that the petitioner was serving under the opposite party no.3, which is a society and a separate entity and his service condition has been regulated as per the provisions of the Staff Service Rules of Orissa Police Co-operative Syndicate, 1990, which is approved by the opposite party no.2. After the enhancement of retirement age of the State Govt. employees by the Government of Orissa pursuant to Resolution vide Annexure-2, the management of the Society furnished the proposal to enhance the age of retirement of its employees from 58 to 60 years, which was pending for consideration before the State Government. At this point of time, the petitioner was issued a notice of superannuation allowing him to retire at the age of 58 years on 31.08.2014. Challenging such notice, the petitioner has filed this petition. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has also filed a Misc. Case bearing Misc. Case No.13333/2014 seeking stay of operation of the impugned notice dated 21.07.2014 under Annexure-1. While entertaining the said application, though notice was issued, this Court passed an interim order vide order dated 27.08.2014 directing that the superannuation of the petitioner in the meanwhile shall remain subject to the result of the writ petition. In the meantime the petitioner has already retired from service on 31.08.2014. While entertaining the said application, though notice was issued, this Court passed an interim order vide order dated 27.08.2014 directing that the superannuation of the petitioner in the meanwhile shall remain subject to the result of the writ petition. In the meantime the petitioner has already retired from service on 31.08.2014. On consideration of the proposal submitted by the Society, the opposite party no.2 in his Order no.17747 dated 29.09.2014 enhanced the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years in respect of employees all the Co-operative Societies in exercise of the power conferred under Section 33-A of the Act, 1962 excepting the employees of the Co-operative Societies (OSCB, DCCB and PACS) from the date of signing of the said order, but the petitioner has already retired prior to the order issued by opposite party no.2, i.e. prior to 29.09.2014. The said order is applicable prospectively and the petitioner cannot claim enhancement of age of superannuation i.e. at the age of 60 years.” 8. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in the case of Sukanta Chandra Mohanty (supra) that the resolution is perspective in nature, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.