HARYANA STATE MINOR IRRIGATION TUBEWELL CORPORATION AND ORS.versusMADAN LAL KOHLI AND ORS.

A         HARYANA STATE MINOR IRRIGATION TUBEWELL
                   CORPORATION AND ORS.
                             v.
                 MADAN LAL KOHLI AND ORS.

                              SEPTEMBER 17, 1998
B
         (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]
                                                                               B
      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.
                                                                               c
      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
                                                                               D
      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        E
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
                                                                               F
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.
                                                                               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 only interpretation which
B   was possible on the Standing Order.

           In this Court, Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Advocate for the
    appellants submitted that a reading of Standing Order 16-A will not enable
    an interpretation of the nature drawn by the High Court. The distinction
    sought to be made between two classes of workmen, namely, those in the
C   work charged establishment and the other regular employees was artificial
    and it does not stand to reason at all that the temporary employees could
    continue after 60 years whereas the regular employees will have to retire
    at the age of 58 years. He maintained that the intention of Standing Order
    16-A was to retire class IV employees at the age of 60 years and class III
D   employees at the age of 58 years and that inasmuch as the appellant was
    class III employee, he was to retire on attaining the age of 58 years.

        It is pointed out that there are two Grades of employees in the
  Haryana Government, namely, Grade-III and Grade-IV, Grade-III
E employees would retire at the age of.58 years whereas Grade IV employees
  would retire at the age of 60 years in the Haryana Government. The same
  principle was extended to the employees of the appellant-Corporation.
  This practice has been followed right from the inception of the Corpora-
  tion. All employees who were in Grade III whether permanent or regular,
  regular or temporary work charged workmen retired at the age of 58 years
F whereas Grade IV employees whether permanent or regular workmen or
  temporary or regular work charged workmen retired at the age of 60 years.
  This position has been made very clear now in the affidavit filed by the
  Managing Director of the Corporation before this Court. All workmen,
  regular workmen as well as regular or temporary work charged workmen
G of the Corporation would retire at the age of 58 years. However, Grade IV
  employees whether permanent or regular workmen or temporary or regular
  work charged workmen would retire at the age of 60 years.

          Learned counsel for respondents strongly supported the view of the
H High Court. To appreciate correctly the contention put forth on behalf of
  • HARYANASfATEMINORIRRlGATIONTIJBEWEU.CORPNv. M.l. KOHLI (RAJENDRABABU,J.) 645


the parties, it is necessary to set out the relevant Standing Order which          A
reads as under :

        "16-A : RETIREMENT : The workman attaining the age of su-
        perannuation i.e. 58 years in the case of regular workmen and 60
        years in the case of regular workmen of the status of Class IV of
        the Government and temporary work charged and regular work                 B
        charged workmen, shall retire. The appointing authority, however,
        retains an absolute right to retire any workman except of the status
        of Class IV in the Government service on or after he has attained
        the age of 55 years if his work is not found to be thoroughly
        satisfactory. A corresponding right is also available to such a            c
        workman to retire on or after he has attained the age of 55 years."

      A careful reading of this Standing Order would indicate that the age
of superannuation of all workmen is _58 years and in case of regular
workmen in the status of Class IV of the Government and temporary work
charged and regular work charged workman, who answer the description               D
of Class IV would retire at the age of 60 years. In other words, the Standing
Order provides that all persons engaged on regular basis against a regular
post will fall into one category who would retire at the age of 58 years.
Class IV is separately carved out into a different category. In that category
workmen are enabled to have a longer period of service, namely, .60 years          E
and all workmen whether regular or temporary are enabled to have a
longer period of service whereas in the other category, namely, Class III,
the employees would retire at the age of 58 years. Any other interpretation
of the Standing Order would lead to anomalous an.d startling results. If the
corporation has chosen to give a benefit only to Class IV employees and
not to Class III employees, no fault can be found with them. The only              F
challenge before the High Court was as to the applicability of Standing
Order 16-A and the manner in which the same should be applied. No other
question was raised.

      In the circumstances, these appeals are allowed and the order made           G
by the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal affirming the order made in
the Writ Petition or the order in the Writ Petitions shall stand set aside
and the writ petitions filed by the respondents shall stand dismissed. In the
circumstances of the case, there shall, however, be no order as to costs.

R.P.                                                          Appeals allowed.