STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RAM PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from the judgment and decree of She Subordinate Judge First class, Patiala, by which he granted Ram Pershad plaintiff the relief prayed for against the Punjab State-defendant, facts necessary for the disposal thereof are these: ram Pershad plaintiff joined as a clerk in the Patiala Saddar Treasury on 4-10-81 Bk. and was transferred in the same capacity to the Patiala state Bank on 27-2-84 Bk. and was confirmed from the same date. He was born on 5-4-1964 Bk. (20th July, 1907 A. D. ). He was allowed the next grade 40-4-60 on the establishment of the Patiala State Bank with effect from 1-9-85 Bk. He was promoted as Manager and posted at bhatinda Branch of the Bank on 1st April, 1944. On 1st April, 1949, the board of Directors promoted him as Selection Grade Manager in the grade 340-20-500/25-700. He earned his grade increments regularly till 31st March, 1958, He was compulsorily retired from service on 23rd september, 1953, but was subsequently reinstated by the Government on 10th June, 1954. He went on leave while working as Manager of the bank at Yamunanagar on 23id November, 1957. Mr. Lashkri Mal kochhar, a 2nd grade officer, succeeded him. 0n return from leave in the month of December, 1957, the plaintiff was posted as an attached officer at Yamunanagar, where he joined in that capacity on 2nd January, 1958. He was not given the house allowance which was admissible to him as manager of the Branch at the rate of Rs. 50/- per mensem.

(2.) THE plaintiff on 17th March, 1958, submitted a claim for Rs. 13. 98 np. as the expenses incurred by him on the treatment of his wife by a doctor of the New Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. The Bank declined to pay him this amount. He was also not allowed to cross the efficiency bar which he was entitled to do on 1st April, 1958, and was ultimately compulsorily retired from service on 11th June, 1958, under Rule 27 of the Bank of patiala (Staff) Rules, 1954. His appeals to the higher authorities against the order of compulsory retirement failed. Thereupon he instituted the present suit impugning the above order on the grounds as given below:

(3.) THE plaintiff also made a grievance of the order by which he was posted as an attached officer at Yamunanagar Branch of the Bank as in his opinion it amounted to reduction in rank and occasioned him a loss at the rate of Rs. 50/- per mensem to which he was entitled as house allowance. He went on to state that the Pepsu government Servants Medical Attendance Rules, 1954, as published in Pepsu government Gazette dated 15th August, 1954, governed his case and so the Bank was not justified in refusing him the payment of Rs. 13. 98 np. spent by him on the treatment of his wile. He further averted that the Bank had not furnished him any reason for withholding his annual increment which fell flue on 1st April, 1958, which was necessary under the Rules. He prayed that it might be held: