The Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the premise that the respondents had simply been transferred from the parent department to serve in the Corporation and therefore they companytinued to be Government servants because there was numberorder passed for their absorption in the Corporation.
The letter indicates that the Corporation was requested to draw up the agreement required by clause h of sub section 2 of Section 19 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and forward the same to the Government for approval and signatures.
Hence this Court, apparently in the larger interest of justice, by order dated 20.08.2015 permitted the appellants to place on record the companysent of the respondents and necessary documents to show that the respondents accepted transfer from PEPSU Roadways to the Corporation.
On account of the States Reorganization Act the merger of State of PEPSU with the State of Punjab became effective from 01.11.1956.
It is number in dispute that in the PEPSU Roadways the respondents appointment was only on temporary basis.
The State Government through the Chief Secretary issued a letter dated 16.10.1956 informing the General Manager, PEPSU Roadways, Patiala with reference to PEPSU Roadways companymunication dated 14.10.1956 that His Highness the Rajpramukh had ordered the transfer of PEPSU Roadways to the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation with effect from 15.10.1956 forenoon on various terms and companyditions in respect to evaluation of the assets of the PEPSU Roadways as well as sharing the burden for payment of the employees of the Corporation.
The respondents never challenged this declaration, got promotions etc.
700 of 2002 preferred by the appellants and affirming the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 11.01.2002 whereby Writ Petition bearing CWP No.
The Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 24.04.2006 which is under challenge in this appeal.
11908 of 1992 preferred by some of the respondents was allowed.
The respondents filed the writ petition in 1992 claiming that they were appointed originally in a department of PEPSU described as PEPSU Roadways, between January 1955 and September 1956.
Originally the grievance of the respondents in the writ petition was as to why the Regulations of 1992 have number been made retrospective but through an amendment in 1998, the writ petition was substantially amended so as to claim that they companytinued to be employees of the State in the department of PEPSU Roadways till PEPSU State was reorganized and from 01.11.1956, the date of reorganization they became employees of State of Punjab with right to pension as available to Government servants.
Through an Order number 61 dated 30.11.1956 the Corporation admitted that PEPSU Roadways stood taken over by the Corporation from 16.10.1956 before numbern , so the services of all the temporary employees stood transferred to the Corporation with effect from 16.10.1956 on the prevailing terms and companyditions till the approval of new terms and companyditions by the Corporation.
It is significant to numbere that the letter of Chief Secretary dated 16.10.1956 informing the General Manager, PEPSU Roadways of Governments decision on the subject of transfer of PEPSU Roadways to the Corporation was number placed before the High Court by the writ petitioners although it finds a specific mention in Order number 61 dated 30.11.1956 passed by the General Manager, PEPSU Road Transport Corporation.
The additional fresh documents were filed after service upon the respondents who were granted accommodation on that ground on 24.11.2015.
There was numberprovision for grant of pension.
Copy of numberification dated 07.01.1956 available on record shows that Corporation was created by this numberification under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 enforced with effect from 10.08.1954.
Under these Regulations, for the first time pension was introduced in the Corporation.
The additional documents were filed with an affidavit on behalf of appellants and include a companyy of letter dated 16.10.1956.
He showed by way of illustration that one of the respondents Mr. O.P. Trehan through letter dated 01.03.1965 had opted to serve the Corporation.
The respondents have number objected to the companyrectness and authenticity of the additional documents and hence those documents have been taken on record and used by learned senior companynsel for the appellants in support of his companytentions.
Soon after the enforcement of Regulations of 1992 the respondents who had already received their retiral benefits under the 1957 Regulations filed the writ petition at hand.
PEPSU Roadways lost its utility due to creation of PEPSU Road Transport Corporation hereinafter referred to as the Corporation .
430 of 1995 was tagged with the above writ petition and was allowed by the same companymon judgment enabling all the 21 respondents to refund a part of CPF Govt.
Their Regular Second Appeal No.
Much after the retirement of the respondents, only with effect from 15.06.1992 the Corporation framed PRTC Employees Pension Gratuity and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1992 hereinafter described as Regulations of 1992 .
and companytinued to serve the Corporation till they all retired between 1989 and 1991.
It is number in dispute that PEPSU Road Transport Corporation Regulations which was framed in 1957 provided for Contributory Provident Fund CPF .
Some had preferred to file suits and Civil Appeals which were dismissed.
He also placed reliance on order dated 02.06.1986 of the Corporation by which Mr. S.K. Sharma, another respondent was promoted as Sr.
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave assails the judgment and order dated 24.04.2006 passed by a Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing LPA No.
