S. JOGINDER SINGH CHATHA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Joginder Singh Chatha, retired District and Sessions Judge, filed a Civil it in the Court of Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Patiala, on Sept. 25, 1990, for a declaration to the effect that he could not be retired from service earlier to April 30, 1982, and as a consequential relief prayed for all the financial benefits.

(2.) Facts as enfolded in the plaint, briefly, are that the date of birth of the plaintiff is April 4, 1922; that he was appointed Naib Nazim in Nabha State vide order dated March 22, 1946 and joined Service at Phol (Nabha State) on March 29, 1946 at his service conditions were regulated by Nabha State Service Regulations, according to which he was to retire on attaining the age of sixty years; that the princely States of Punjab, including Nabha and Patiala, formed a Union in the year 1948 known as Patiala and East Punjab States Union (for short, the 'PEPSU') and entered into a covenant, which was in the nature of the constitution of the new State that as per Article XVI of that Covenant, the members of the Public Services of the Covenanting States were to continue in service of the new State of PEPSU on the terms and conditions which were not less advantageous than those of which they were serving on Feb. 1, 1948, or they could be retired, on payment of suitable compensation, if not required by the new State of PEPSU; that the plaintiff was serving as a permanent Naib Nazim in Nabha State and was thus entitled to the guarantee contained in the Covenant that he was integrated into the Judicial Service of PEPSU with effect from Sept. 1, 1948 vide Home Department's order dated Dec. 29, 1954; that on re-organization of the State of Punjab with effect from Nov. 1, 1956, the State of PEPSU was merged into the new State of Punjab mid he was allocated to the new State of Punjab; that as per the provisions of Sec. 115 of the States Re-organization Act, 1956, his conditions of service in the former State were protected; that he served in the new State of Punjab as a Judicial Officer in various capacities and was promoted as Additional District & Sessions Judge in the year 1964 and was serving as such till the new State of Punjab was formed on Nov. 1, 1966; that the plaintiff was allocated to the new State of Punjab with effect from Nov. 1, 1966 and as per the provisions of Sec. 82 of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966, his conditions of service in the former State were protected; that this Court passed an order on April 14, 1980, appointing Shri Jai Singh Sekhon as District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar in his place with effect from May 1, 1980, without giving him any further posting wrongly presuming that he was retired from service on April 30, 1980; that his age of retirement was 60 years and he was to continue in service till April 30, 1982; that if he had continued in service, he would have been fixed in higher grade than the one which was allowed to him on the date of his retirement. He served a notice under Sec. 80, Civil Procedure Code, and on these premises, sought a declaration as stated above. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the State of Punjab and also by the Registrar, High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana through its Registrar was added as a party defendant to the suit. It filed written statement through its Registrar. On the statement of the counsel for the plaintiff that the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana was not a necessary party, its name was struck off from the array of defendants vide order dated Aug. 2, 1991. Reference to any of the pleas in the written statement filed by the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana has not been made in this judgment.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the State of Punjab, it pleaded that the suit was barred by time; that on formation of PEPSU on Aug. 20, 1948, the Patiala Services Regulations were applicable to the entire territories of the PEPSU by Ordinance No. 1 of 2005; that according to Rule 9.1 of Pepsu Service Regulations, Volume I, read with Rule 3.13 Volume-III, every Government servant, on attaining the age of 55 years, was to retire on such pension as may be admissible to him; that after the merger of PEPSU with the State of Punjab on account of re-organisation of States, the retirement age of Punjab Government employees was raised from 55 years to 58 years vide Punjab Government's circular letter No. 54IG-3 GS/11926, dated March 28, 1963 with effect from Dec. 1, 1962 and accordingly the plaintiff was retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years; that Art. XVI of the Covenant only guarantees continuance of the permanent members of the public services of each of Covenanting States till Aug. 20, 1948, because by virtue of the powers vested under Art. VI, the administration of the Covenanting States had been transferred to the Raj Pramukh of the Union and from then onwards all rights authority and jurisdiction were exercisable only as provided by the Constitution framed thereunder; that in fact, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Art. X(2) of the Covenant, Raj Pramukh promulgated Ordinance No. 1 of 2005 and from the date of enforcement of this Ordinance by virtue of the provisions of Rule 3, all Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Rules, Regulations, Notifications, and Firman-i-Shahi, having force of law in Patiala State on the date of the commencement of the Ordinance were to apply mutatis mutandis to the territories of the Covenanting States and with effect from that date all laws in force in the Covenanting State stood repealed that consequently, Nabha State Services Regulations, under which the plaintiff was to retire on attaining the age of 60 years, ceased to be in force, with the enforcement of the Ordinance and, thereafter, the conditions of service of the plaintiff came to be governed by Pepsu Service Regulations, Volume I read with Volume III and that according to 9.1 of these Regulations, the Government servants had to retire on attaining the age of 55 years; that there is no provision in the Pepsu Services Regulations whereby the age of superannuation is 60 years of Government employees, as fixed by the Erstwhile Nabha State, was protected; that the State of PEPSU was absorbed in the State of Punjab and the plaintiff cannot take any help from Sec. of the Re-organisation Act because after the formation of the State of Punjab, he came to be governed by the Punjab Civil Services Rules and according to which he was to retire on superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years and that he was rightly retired from service with effect from April 30, 1980.