GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA AND ORS. versus RASANANDA DAS

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 45 · Decided: 26-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

t 
> 
GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
RASANANDA DAS 
SEPTEMBER 26, 2003 
[SHIV ARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Pay Scale-Orissa State Electricity Board-Regulation of Board 
prescribing 58 years as age of superannuation-Some employees of Board C 
entitled to continue till 60 years by virtue of benefit of condition of service ' 
given to them-Board giving better pay scales of Board to such employees-
Dispute arising regarding pay scale applicable to such employees from the 
age of 58 to 60 years-Held, no prohibition from giving better scales and 
it was given without any reservation and hence cannot be taken away-
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948-Section 60. 
D 
Workmen employed in Hirakud Dam Project were getting pay 
scales applicable to employees in work-charged establishment of the 
Central Public Works Department (CPWD). State Government took 
over Project w.e.f. 1.4.1960 with understanding that employees recruited 'E 
prior to 1.4.1960 be allowed to continue on the same scales of pay and 
conditions of service as were -applicable to them on 31.3.1960 and the 
said workmen continued to work under different departments of the 
State Government. Workmen employed subsequent to 1.4.1960 were 
paid pay scales applicable to the employees of work-charged 
establishments of the State Government. In disputes regarding disparity .F 
of pay scales between workmen employed prior to 1.4.1960 and those.· 
employed thereafter, this Court held that workmen employed prior to 
1.4.1960 are entitled to the same scale of pay and other conditions of 
service as before as if they were employees of the work-charged 
establishments of the CPWD. 
G 
Workmen working in Electrical Departntent on the formation of 
Orissa State Electricity Board were continued in service under the said 
Board. Regulation of Board prescribed age of superannuation of 58 
years. High Court while deciding the issue of age of superannuation '.H 
applicable to employees of the Board held that employees working in 
45 
46 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A the work charged establishments of ~frakud Project prior to 1.4.1960 
were entitled to continue till the age of 60 years because of statutory 
protection given to such employees under Section 60 of the Electricity 
(Supply) Act, 1948. The scale of pay to employees of the Board was 
higher than scale of ·pay. available to employees of CPWD and 
B respondent-workmen formerly. employees of work charged 
establishment under. CPWD were allowed the scale of pay of Board till 
they attained .. the age of 58 years. However, dispute arose regarding 
pay scale for such employees who continued in service beyond 58 years 
till they attained superannuation at 60 years. High Court held that such 
employees are entitled to higher pay seal.es. Hence, these appeals by 
<!:: the appellant-Board. 
Appellant-Board contended that respondents-workmen cann,ot 
claim double benefit and could continue in service beyond 58 years 
upto 60 years but could not insist on higher pay scale available to 
D regular employees of the Board recruited after 1.4.1960 for the period 
between the age of 58 years to 60 years and their pension and retiral 
benefits could be reckoned only on that basis. 
Respondent-workmen contended that their service conditions 
were protected and they were given higher pay scale by the appellant 
E on their own and hence the appellant cannot contend otherwise to deny 
higher pay s.;:ales for the period between the age of 58 years to 60 years. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The appellants by the Office Order dated 22.7.1969 
F for the various reasons stated therein gave better pay scales to the 
employees, who came from the Hirakud Project. These pay scales were 
given without any reservation or subject to any condition and also 
knowing fully well that such employees were entitled to retire at the 
age of 60 years and not at the age of 58 years. (51-H, 52-A] 
G 
2. There was protection of service conditions of such employees but 
there was no prohibition from improving them or giving better pay scales. 
The appellants having given better pay scales, as early in 1969, cannot 
reduce the pay scales when it comes to granting pensionary/retiral benefits 
for the period between the age of 58 to 60 years .. When the employees 
H continue to work up to the retirement age of 60 years their pay scales 
GRID CORPN. OF ORISSA v. RASANANDA DAS [PATIL, J.] 
47 
cannot 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.