All Orissa Electrical Workers Union Vs. State of Orissa and Others

.....from s. 3 which was struck by the court in narasimha rao's case. it is clear that parliament would not have enacted s. 2 without s. 3 as far as telengana is concerned. the whole history of the legislation its object tide and the preamble to it point to that conclusion. further. the constitution (seventh amendment) act 1956, substituting art. 1 for the old also shows that it was intended to give special consideration to the telengana region. [573g-h] principles laid down in r.m.d. chamarbaugwala v. union of india. [1957] s.c.r. 930. held applicable. the contention that s. 2 insofar as it dealt with telengana region cannot be given an independent existence was not acceptable. it is only a matter of drafting and if the telengana. region had been dealt with separately in a separate act it could without hesitation be held that s. 2 would fall with s. 3. the fact that s. 2 deals with laws and rules in various states would not prevent the separation of the valid portion from the invalid portion. this court specifically held in narasimha rao's case' that s. 3 was bad insofar as it dealt with the telengana region. section 2 must also be held to be bad insofar as it dealt with telengana area. [574b-d]. (v) whether the mulki rules were unjust to the respondents was a matter for parliament to decide. this court was only concerned with their validity. [574e].....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 mohanly's case.2. 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.3. the special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.