(1.) This appeal by special leave is preferred against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High court under the following circumstances.
(2.) The respondent was appointed as Nazir Niabat Amloh on 1/5/1947 by the Registrar of the High court of Nabha. Subsequently, the Nabha High court was merged with the Pepsu State on 1/9/1948. Later on, it was merged along with Pepsu with Punjab State. Disciplinary action for unauthorised absence from duty was initiated against the respondent. At that time he voluntarily addressed a letter on 6/7/1977 to the Sub-Judge, Patiala, under whom he was serving, seeking permission to retire voluntarily. It may be noted by offering voluntary retirement he avoided disciplinary action. The learned Sub-Judge granted the permission and the respondent was retired from service w. e. f. 31/8/1977. Surprisingly the respondent challenged the permission so granted by the learned Sub-Judge, Patiala, and the consequential retirement order on the ground that the authority to grant such permission was not the learned Sub-Judge but the Hon'ble chief justice/registrar, Punjab and Haryana High court. This contention was raised on the basis of Section 115 (7 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. To sustain his contention, he filed a civil suit challenging the order of voluntaryretirement. The trial court (Senior Sub-Judge, Patiala) did not accept the contention and accordingly dismissed the suit. On appeal, the appellate court (Additional District Judge, Patiala) accepted the contention of the respondent and allowed the appeal. The High court also confirmed it on the ground that appointing authority so far as the respondent was concerned was the chief justice/registrar of the High court. It is under these circumstances the present appeal by way of special leave has been preferred.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant brought to our notice proviso to Section 115 (7 of the States Reorganisation Act and also Rule 2 (1 of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975.