1996 INSC 0168
                                             State of Orissa and Others

                                                           Vs

                                                 Arnab Kumar Dutta

                                          Civil Appeal No. 2338 of 1996

                                          (G. N. Ray, B. L. Hansaria JJ)

                                                      24.01.1996

                                                     JUDGMENT

HANSARIA, J. ­

1. Leave granted.

2. While ordering for issuance of notice, it was stated that the matter would be disposed of at the
notice stage in view of the judgment of this Court delivered on 27-1-1995 in CA No. 1497 of 1993,
which has since been reported as State of Orissa v. Adwait Charan Mohanty [1995 Supp (1) SCC
470 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 522 : (1995) 29 ATC 365].

3. Shri Misra who has appeared for the respondent, has, however, taken a stand that the appeal may
not be decided on the basis of the aforesaid judgment inasmuch as while deciding the aforesaid case,
this Court's attention was not drawn to the Resolution of the State Government dated 21-5-1974 on
the subject of age of superannuation of workmen appointed in Architectural and Drawing Branches
of PWD, in which draughtsman is one of the categories of the staff of Architectural Branch, who is
required to be retained in service till the age of 60 years.

4. In the case in question this Court was called upon to decide the age to retirement of a 'workman'
who as per the second proviso to Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code shall ordinarily be retained
in service up to the age of 60 years. In the Note appended to the proviso, it has been stated that a
'workman' means a highly skilled, skilled or semi-skilled and unskilled artisan employed on a
monthly rate of pay in any Government establishment. After examining the meaning of the word
'artisan' finding place in the different dictionaries, it was held in para 12 that the object of the Rule
appears to bring "artisan-workman" on a par with Class IV employees, and he alone is required to
retire on the completion of 60 years of age, but not the gazetted or non-gazetted Class III
government servants or even Class II or I, which would be the result if all artisans were given
benefit of retention of service up to 60 years inasmuch as even a Director of Town Planning or
Chief Architect could be considered to be an artisan. It was, therefore, held that among others a
draftsman would not be a workman to get the benefit of retention of service up to the age of 60
years.

5. Shri Misra has taken pains to submit that the aforesaid Government Resolution having
specifically stated that the draftsman would get the benefit of retention of service up to 60 years, the
appeal may not be decided on the basis of the aforementioned judgment, because if the attention of
the Court would have been drawn to the Resolution, it is probable that the Court would have taken a
different view. We do not agree with the learned counsel because a perusal of the Resolution shows
that the same owes its origin to the decision of the Orissa High Court in OJC No. 632 of 1969 read
with the definition of the workman in the Note below the proviso to Rule 71(a). What is the purport
of the Note has been explained in the aforesaid decision of this Court. The High Court's judgment in
the OJC, cannot now be regarded as good in law. According to us, therefore, the fact that the
attention of the Court in Adwait Charan Mohanty case (1995 Supp (1) SCC 470 : 1995 SCC (L&S)
522 : (1995) 29 ATC 365] was not drawn to the Resolution has no significance.

6. The appeal, therefore, has to be allowed, which we hereby do, inasmuch as by the impugned
judgment the respondent, who is a draftsman, has been ordered to be retained in service up to the
age of 60 years. He has indeed to retire on completion of the age of 58 years. So, the impugned
judgment is set aside.

7. Parties to bear their own costs.