Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.26 seconds)
State Of Orissa & Ors vs Sadhu Charan Pradhan on 17 September, 1997 cites

Desh Raj Parshotam Lal And Ors. vs The State Punjab And Ors. on 24 July, 1978

The respondent jointed service in the workcharged establishment of the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Bhubaneswar on November 16,1961 as a mason. On February 17,1978 he was brought over to the regular establishment thus being in the Government Department. The respondent was to retire on September 30,1994 on attaining the age of 58 years. The respondent, however, filed original application in the Tribunal claiming that he was entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. His claim was based on the 'Note ' below second proviso to Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code. His further claim was that the Works Department of the State Government should be treated as "industry' relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Des Raj and others vs. State of Punjab and others 1988 (2) SLR 789.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

State Of Orissa & Others vs Adwait Charan Mohanty on 27 January, 1995

The Ribunal then held that an artisan was a functionary whose nature of work was manual and that mason would come within that category. It also noticed that in a certain communication of the Works Department a post of the mason was catagorised as "workman". The Tribunal then referred to various others OAS filed by employees of the Works Department was an industry. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the respondent was to be treated as workman and he was entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years. The State Government filed a review application before the Tribunal bringing to its notice a judgement of this Court in State of Orissa and others Vs. Adwait Charan Mohanty and others Civil Appeal No.1497 of 1993 decided on January 27, 1995 (since reported as 1995 Supp (1) SCC 470) pointing out that in a similar case the Supreme Court had held that a government employee like the respondent would retire at the age of 58 years. This application was dismissed by the Tribunal on July 8,1996 without referring to the judgement of this Court and merely noting that the State Government only wanted to record that counter affidavit had been filed which according to the Tribunal was filed one day late after it had announced the judgement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 32 - Full Document
1