Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

ALL ORISSA ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

Decided
20 September 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 625 · 1996 INSC 1091
Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Smt. Indira J aising, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in this petitio~J has argued on 2.8.1996 before the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justices M.M. Punchhi and K. Venkataswami, JJ. and the learned Judges have referred the ~atter for reconsideration of the earlier decision by the Bench of which Hon'ble Sri Hansaria, J. was a member. Consequently, it was posted on August 5, 1996 before the Bench consisting of Hon'ble Justice G.N. Ray and Hon'ble Justice Hansaria who have referred the matter again to us for reconsideration of the judgment rendered in State of Orissa v. Adwant Charan Mohanty & Ors., [1995] Supp. 1 SCC 470. We thought that there was a conflict between the judgment in State of Orissa v. Amab Kumar Dutta, JT (1996) 2 SC 516 and the judgment in Mohanty's case. After going through the two judgments, we find that there is no conflict of the views. On the other hand, in A.K Dutta's case, the Bench has followed the decision in Mohanty's case.

pp. 625–626, margin F

Smt. Indira Jaising has contended that the Government have treated different classes of the persons, namely, electrician, plumber, mastry, fitters Grade II, roller mechanic, mechanic, wireman, etc...... as skilled workmen entitled to the benefit of 60 years and that the judgment in Mohanty's case requires consideration. We do not think that the learned counsel is right in her submission. We have considered the entire service rules operating in the State of Orissa and also various instructions issued by the Government from time to time together with the note to Rule 71(a) of the Rules. We have categorised various persons who are eligible to superannuation at the age of 60 years and such of those employees who have been fitted into class III and upwards, though they are skilled or highly skilled, they are not entitled to the benefit of 60 years for superannuation. They are required to retire on attaining the age of 58 years while the Class IV employees, though skilled, semi-skilled or highly skilled alone are entitled to the benefit of superannuation at the age of 60 years. In that view, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment in Mohanty's case does not require reconsideration. · The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

p. 626, margin A