NIRMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Nirmal Singh for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioner as if the petitioner has retired on December 31, 1989, with a further direction that the petitioner be held entitled to all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Tractor Driver in the department of Agriculture in January in January 1951 as Class IV employee at a monthly salary of Rs. 125/-. Erstwhile Pepsu was merged with the State of Punjab. The petitioner continued to serve as Tractor driver in the erstwhile State of Punjab. There was reorganisation in the State of Punjab in the year 1966. The petitioner continued to serve in the reorganised State of Punjab till December 31, 1987 when he was retired from service on superannuation. As per the petitioner his date of birth was December 28, 1929. He claims that he was entitled to be retired on attaining the age of 60 years rather than 58 years. The petitioner relies upon Regulation 1.3 with Regulation 2.28 of the Pepsu Services Regulations.

(3.) The claim of the petitioner has been contested. A written statement has been filed. The plea of the respondents is that the petitioner was appointed as Tractor cleaner on April 25, 1950 as Class IV employee but thereafter he was promoted as Tractor driver on January 12, 1951 at a fixed salary of Rs. 125/- per month. The post of Tractor driver was treated as Class III post. Under these circumstances, when the petitioner was retired he was getting Rs. 1,530/- as fixed pay. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner was not a Class IV employee and his services were not inferior. The State Government had issued a memo dated August 20, 1990 where in a similar case it was advised that a person who was similarly situated person and who was not in service on February 1, 1948 should be retired from service at the age of 58 years. Claim of the petitioner that his retirement age was 60 years was also disputed.