S NARINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a nonagenarian. He started practice as an Advocate in the year 1923. After the partition of the country in the year 1947, the petitioner shifted to Patiala and continued his Law Practice there. In January 1948, he was appointed as a Govt. Advocate. In August 1948, the petitioner was appointed as Advocate General in the State of Pepsu. The post carried the pay scale of Rs. 1500-50-1700. In the year 1953, the petitioner was appointed as a Sessions Judge in the State of Pepsu. In the year 1954, he was appointed as Registrar of the High Court. He retired from service on August 14, 1955. At that time, the petitioner was drawing a basicpayof Rs. 1700/-in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-50-1700.

(2.) In the erstwhile State of Pepsu, which was merged with the State of Punjab on November 1, 1956, the conditions of service were governed by the regulations called the Pepsu Services Regulations. These regulations were published initially in the year 1947. On the formation of Pepsu, the regulations were made applicable to the "entire territories of the Union by Ordinance No. 1 of 2005 BK' Regulation 9.1 of Chapter IX Volume I provided for the retirement of every Govt, servant "on attaining the age of 55 years on such pension as may be admissible to him under the rules for the time being in force----------". The provision for the grant of pensions was made in Chapter III of Volume III.

(3.) According to the petitioner, under these Regulations, a person on completion of 10 years of qualifying service was entitled to the grant of pension. It is further averred that in Punjab, the conditions of service governing the members of the Judicial Service were laid down in the rules called the Punjab Superior Judicial Services Rules, 1963. On the merger of the erstwhile States of Pepsu and Punjab, such persons who were in the service of the erstwhile State of Pepsu, were governed by the provisions of the Punjab Rules. Rule 16 of these rules was amended vide notification dated February 22, 1990, to inter alia provide that in case of direct recruits the actual period of practice at Bar, not exceeding 10 years, shall be added to his service qualifying for superannuation pension and other retirement benefits." However, by an order dated February 25, 1991, the Govt, decided that the amendment of rule 16 shall apply to only such person as retired after February 22,1990 and not to those who had retired prior to that date. It is the claim of the petitioner that the action of the State Govt, in not extending the benefit of amendment to persons like him who had retired prior to the issue of the notification on February 22,1990 is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is on this premises that the petitioner has prayed for the issue of suitable writ or directions to the respondents for the grant of pension. Initially, the petitioner had impleaded only the State of Punjab as a respondent. In the written statement filed by the State of Punjab, a preliminary objection was raised that "the pension is calculated by the Punjab and Haryana High Court (being head of the department) and sanctioned by the Accountant General, Punjab-----------". It was claimed that these too were necessary parties to the case. Accordingly, the petitioner had impleaded the High Court of Punjab and Haryana as also the Accountant General, Punjab, as respondents.