PAIARA LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted. We have heard the counsel on both sides on the merits of the appeal.

(2.) The appellant was appointed as a Constable in the Police Department of the erstwhile State of PEPSU (Patiala and East Punjab States Union) which merged later on 1-11-1956 with the new State of Punjab. The Raj Pramukh of the State of PEPSU framed, under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the PEPSU Services Regulations, Volume 1 para 2.28 thereof defines 'inferior servant'as 'inferior Government servant' as included in the list in Appendix 1. The said Appendix includes, among others, Police Constables. Notification dated 20-7-1954 (F.D. 1 (2) Regn. 64) issued under the proviso to Article 309 by the Raj Pramukh says that the following note shall be added under Article 9.1 of PEPSU Services Regulations Volume 1 and the existing Note shall be numbered as Note (1) :

(3.) The appellant challenged the validity of the said order in Civil Suit No. 596 filed on 16-11-1991. The trial court decreed the suit on 20-9-1994 holding that in view of the proviso to S. 115(7) of the States Re-organisation Act, the appellant was entitled to continue in service up to 60 years as per PEPSU Regulations. The appeal by the State of Punjab was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala (Punjab) on 16-10-1995. However, the Second Appeal, RSA 611/1996 referred by the State was allowed by the High Court on 25-7-1996 following the Division Bench judgment inTripat Singh v. State of Punjab etc. (CWP 8186 of 1994) dated 8-9-1994. In that case, it was held by the Division Bench that the age of superannuation applicable to the employees is the one applicable to them at the time of retirement in the State of Punjab. That was a case in which the employees were working in a higher post, a Class-III post on promotion from Class-IV. The Division Bench held that it was the age of retirement applicable to the post which a person was holding at the time of retirement that was relevant. Following the said judgment, the learned single Judge allowed the Second Appeal holding that notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff was not promoted to class III after allotment to Punjab, still the principle stated in the Division Bench judgment applied and that inasmuch as in Punjab, a Constable was to retire at 58 years, the appellant could not claim any higher right based upon the regulations obtaining in the State of PEPSU. No reference was made by the learned single Judge to the proviso to Section 115 (7) of the States Re-Organisation Act, 1956 while taking this view, even though the trial court and the first appellate court had made reference to the said provision. Some other Judgments of learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court decided with reference to Section 115 (7) were not followed in view of the judgment of the Division Bench even though on the facts of the present case, the appellant had never been promoted to class III in the State of Punjab, after allotment to that State of Punjab.