SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the short point involved is, as to whether the petitioner who joined service as a driver, a Class-IV employee in the erstwhile State of Pepsu was entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years or he was to be retired on attaining the age of 58 years, the age of superannuation as provided in the Punjab Civil Services Rules as applicable to the employees serving at present in the State of Punjab. As per averments made in the writ petition, the date of birth of the petitioner is 20.6.1993. He was initially recruited as a driver in the Ghaggar Division, Nabha, in Pepsu. According to the service conditions applicable to Pepsu employees, drivers were regarded as inferior employees and as such, their age of retirement was kept as 60 years. Upon the merger of erstwhile State of Pepsu with Punjab on 1.11.1956, petitioner became a member of erstwhile Punjab State. His services along with other employees of the two States were integrated under Section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, but the petitioner retained his right to continue in service upto 60 years of age by virtue of provisions contained in the proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, according to which the conditions of service of the existing States could not be varied to their disadvantage without the previous approval of the Central Government. Upon the reorganisation of the State of Punjab, with effect from 1.11.1966, services of the petitioner were finally allocated to the successor State of Punjab by virtue of provisions as contained in Section 82 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. Because of proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 82 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, the Class IV employees of the former State of Pepsu are entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. Though the petitioner, by virtue of above protection of law, was to superannuate on 30th June, 1993, i.e. upto 60 years, yet the respondents decided to retire him from service w.e.f. 30th June, 1991. This was for the reason that in the State of Punjab, drivers are categorised as Class-III employees and no such protection is available to these employees. Before the petitioner could be retired, he filed the present writ petition, but during the pendency of the writ petition, he has since retired. In opposition to this, respondents in their written statement have stated that persons who were given the benefit of 60 years were Class-IV employees, whereas the petitioner was upgraded and promoted as Class-III employee and was properly retired on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e. 58 years.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel at some length, I am of the view that the writ petition is squarely covered by decision of this Court in Niranjan Singh v. Secretary to Govt. Punjab, Transport Department, Chandigarh and others,1990 1 SLR 794. Petitioner was holding an "inferior" post in the capacity of a Class-IV Government Servant in the former State of Pepsu and, therefore, he had a right to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years, i.e. even after coming over to the former State of Punjab under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and even after his allocation to the present State of Punjab under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1956. The stand of the respondents that the petitioner was upgraded and promoted as Class-II employee, cannot be accepted because no order of promotion has been placed on record. Petitioner, on the other hand, has annexed with the writ petition a notification under Article 309 of the Constitution of India (Annexure P-2) in which it is stated that "Drivers or Chaufours who were in service of the erstwhile State of Patiala and East Punjab State Union immediately before the Ist of November, 1956, shall continue to be treated as inferior Government Servants (Class-IV) except that for purposes of T.A. only they shall be regarded as ministerial (Class-III)". This notification leaves no manner of doubt that Drivers and Chauffours who were in the employment of erstwhile State of Pepsu were to be treated as ministerial, Class-III, employees only for the purposes of T.A. Petitioner has placed on record Annexure P-3, P-4 and P-5 whereby drivers similarly situated were allowed to continue in service till the age of 60 years. Thus, I am of the view that petitioner was also entitled to be retained in service till he completed the age of 60 years.

(3.) Consequently, the writ petition is allowed impugned order, Annexure R-1 retiring the petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years, i.e. w.e.f. 30.6.1991 is quashed. Resultantly, petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in service upto 30th June, 1993, i.e. upto the age of 60 years, and he is held entitled to get arrears and other allowances etc., to which he would have been entitled under the rules, had he not been retired at the age of 58 years and had continued in service upto the age of 60 years. Respondents are directed to work out the monetary benefits admissible to the petitioner forthwith and to release all the arrears along with benefits of revised pension etc. within three months from the date of communication of this order, petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of this petition which are assessed at Rs. 1,000/-.