LexHARYANA STATE MINOR IRRIGATION TUBEWELL CORPORATION AND ORS. versus MADAN LAL KOHLI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A HARYANA STATE MINOR IRRIGATION TUBEWELL CORPORATION AND ORS. v. MADAN LAL KOHLI AND ORS. B SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 (SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] Labour Law C Certified Standing Orders : Standing Order 16-A-Haiyana State Minor Irrigation Corpora- tion-Work charged employee falling in class Ill category-Held, would retire 011 attaining age of 58 years. D Respondent No. 1 was a class Ill work-charged employee of the appellant Corporation which passed an order retiring him at the age 58 years under Standing Order 16-A of the certified Standing Orders. The order was challenged in a writ petition in the High Court. The Single Judge held that there were two categories of employees, namely (i) class Ill regular employees and (ii) class IV and work-charged employees; and that E the work charged employees not possessing any security of service would have a longer period of service and, like a class IV employee, would retire at the age of 60 years. On appeal, this view was accepted by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Corporation was directed to reinstate respon- dent No. 1 and to pay him arrears of salary. The writ petitions filed by other F respondents were disposed in the same terms. Aggrieved, the Corporation filed the present appeals. It was contended for the appellant that the High Court erred in categorising the employees in the categories of regular employees and workcharged employees, whereas the intention of the Standing Order 16-A G was to retire a class IV employee at the age of 60 years and a class Ill employee at the age of 58 years and as the respondents were class III employees, they were to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. Allowing the appeals, the Court H HELD : Standing Order 16-A provides that all persons engaged on 642 HARYANA5fATEMINORIRRIGATIONTUBEWELLCORPNv. M.L KOHLI 643 regular basis against class III posts will fall into one category aud would A retire at the age of 58 years. Class IV is separately carved out into a different category and workmen belonging to this category are enabled to have a longer period of service, namely, 60 years. If the Corporation has chosen to give a benefit only to class IV employees and not to class Ill employees, no fault can be found with them. [645-D-E-F] CIVIL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 12026-30 of 1996. From the Judgment and Orde~ dated 4.1.96 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 280/91 C.W.P. Nos. 8784-86/91and17682of1991. K.T.S. Tulsi and Prem Malhotra for the Appellants. Neeraj K. Jain for Anil K. Gupta-II for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAJENDRA BABU, J. The respondents are class III regular work- ehargcd employees of the appellant which is a Public Sector Undertaking engaged in the promotion, installation and management of tubewells and other minor irrigation projects in the State of Haryana. The orders made by the appellants retiring the respondents at the age of 58 years under Standing Order 16-A of the certified Standing Orders were challenged in the writ petitions before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by M.L. Kohli and directed the Corporation to re-instate him until he attained the age of 60 • years and to pay arrears of salary and,. allowances. Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the said order was,_dismissed. Following the order in Letters Patent Appeal, the other writ petitions filed by the respondent were also disposed of on the same terms. The appellants are before us challeng- ing the said order made in the Letters Patent Appeal and the orders in Writ Petitions. B c D E F G The learned Single Judge noticed that there are two categories of employees - (i) class III regular employees and (ii) Class IV and work charged employees whether rei,'1llar, temporary or ad hoc. Work charged employees and class IV employees were put in one category and class III regular employees were put in another category. On that basis, he held that H 644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP.1 S.C.R. A a work charged employee not possessing any security of service is enabled to have a longer period of service and he will have the benefit of two extra years of service before retirement. Such a conclusion was reached on the basis of the intention apparent from the Rules. This view was accepted by the Division Bench which stated that that was the on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.