STATE OF HARYANA Vs. AMAR NATH BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, by special leave arises out of a suit filed by the respondent-Amar Nath Bansal for a declaration that his retirement on attaining the age of 58 years was illegal and that he is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 62 years.

(2.) THE respondent was appointed as a civilian clerk in the Army in the erstwhile State of Jind on July 12, 1943. In the Jind State the age of superannuation, as prescribed by Regulation 27 of the Jind State Civil Service Regulations, 1945, was 62 years. On May 5, 1948 the Ruler of Jind State and the Rulers of the State of Patiala, Kapurthala, Nabha, Faridkot, Malerkotla, Nalagarh and Kalsia entered into a Covenant whereby they agreed to unite and integrate their territories in one State to be known as Patiala and East Punjab States Union (for short 'PEPSU'). As a result of the integration of the services of the union States, the respondent was posted as Auditor in the Treasury in PEPSU. On the coming into force of the Constitution, PEPSU became a Part B State and continued as such till the re-organisation of the States under the States Re-organisation Act, 1956. With effect from November 1, 1956, the Part B State of PEPSU became a part of the reorganised State of Punjab and the respondent was absorbed in the service of the State of Punjab. As a result of the re-organization of the State of Punjab and the formation of the State of Haryana by the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966 with effect from November 1, 1966, the respondent was allocated to the State of Haryana. While he was employed as Assistant Treasury Officer in the State of Haryana, he was retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years with effect from September 30, 1984. On September 25, 1987 he filed a suit (Civil Suit No. 392 of 1987) in the Court of Sub-Judge IInd Class, Rohtak, for a declaration that his retirement at the age of 58 years was illegal and against the service conditions and that he was entitled to continue in service upto the age of 62 years. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court on the view that the Jind State Service Rules were not applicable and the conditions of service of respondent were governed by Rule 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. 1 Part I which prescribes 58 years as the age of superannuation. The said judgment of the trial court was, however, reversed in appeal by the Additional District Judge IV, Rohtak, who held that the age of superannuation constitutes a condition of service and by virtue of clause XVI of the Covenant the said condition continued in operation in the State of PEPSU and thereafter in the State of Punjab in view of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956 and in the State of Haryana in view of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966 and it has not been shown that the approval of the Central Government had been taken for applying the provisions of Rule 3.26 of Vol. 1 Part I of the Punjab Civil Service Rules to the respondent. Second appeal filed by the appellant-State against the said judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated July 6, 1993. Hence this appeal.

(3.) IN accordance with Article VI of the Covenant the Raj Pramukh took over the administration of Jind State on August 20, 1948 and on the same date the Raj Pramukh promulgated the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Administration Ordinance No. 1 of S. 2005. Section 3 of the said Ordinance contained the following provision :-