MOHINDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Mr. Mohindra Singh Pannu, Deputy Advocate General (Punjab), in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, holds the degree of Master of laws and has had a brilliant academic career. After having been appointed a permanent Public Prosecutor on May 24, 1945, with his lien remaining on the post, he was appointed Assistant Advocate General, Anti-Corruption Department, on july 14, 1956. By an order of September 18/26, 1957, annexure 'f', he was appointed an Assistant Advocate General, on the establishment of the Advocate general of Punjab, which office he joined on September 30, 1957. The letter of appointment said that the appointment was subject to the categorical condition that Shri Pannu will continue to work for the Punjab Government in the Anti-Corruption Department To this letter the terms of appointment were attached and those terms are --

(2.) THE petitioner applied to the Punjab Government on November 15, 1961, that he be relieved of the work in the Vigilance Department and permitted to do whole-time work in the High Court from January 1, 1962, so that he may be in touch with his profession and on retirement may not be deprived of eases dealing with service matters arising from action taken by the Vigilance Department. The request was considered by the Government and the then Chief Minister, Sardar pratap Singh Kairon, in appreciation of his work, instead of accepting his request, approved of an extension of three years of service after the date of superannuation. The petitioner had pointed out that he was only interested in the extension of his service if he could earn pension and that he could only do if he was given three years' extension. The extension was, therefore, given to him in appreciation of his work and so as to enable him to earn pension. With the extended service of three years, the petitioner was to put in a little over ten years or service, which was to qualify him for pension. The order is annexure 't' of December 21, 1962. Some considerable argument has centered round the meaning and scope of this order and paragraph 2 of this order, which is relevant for the matter, reads -

(3.) THERE was a change in the policy of the Government with regard to the age of compulsory retirement. In a letter, annexure 'u' of March 28, 1963, the Financial commissioner (Planning) and Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Punjab, wrote to all Heads of Departments on that subject. That letter says -