The Patiala State Regulations were first promulgated in the year 1908 and governed the employees of the State in matters relating to pay, allowances, leave, pension and travelling allowances.
He pleaded that the order of companypulsory retirement amounted to dismissal or removal from service within the meaning of art.
Meanwhile, in April 1941 these Regulations were made applicable expressly to the Bank staff of the Patiala state Bank by the Maharaja, with the exception of the rules relating to pension.
The Subordinate Judge, Patiala, framed appropriate issues.
The respondent companytested the suit companytending inter alia that the order of companypulsory retirement was passed by the Board of Directors of the Bank under rules, which were legal and companystitutionally valid and governed the employees of the Bank.
1 of 2005 Bk.
Two important exceptions were made and those were that the Patiala State, Regulations shall apply to the Bank staff with the exception of the pension rules, but that the staff shall have the benefit of a companytributory provident fund and that the Bank service shall be recognized as a State service for the purposes of employment in State service of suitable candidates from among the descendants of the Bank employees.
He found all but two issues in favour of the appellant and granted a decree substantially allowing the claims made by him.
The respondent thereupon filed an appeal in the High Court of Punjab which allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Subordinate Judge.
311 of the Constitution.
On August 20, 1948, Patiala became a companystituent unit of the Patiala and ,East Punjab States Union PEPSU .
It may be numbered that the Order issued by the Maharaja on July 19, 1940, viz.,
On March 4, 1953, the President of lndia assumed the powers of the Government of PEPSU, in exercise of the powers companyferred on him by art.
He further maintained that r. 27 of the Bank of Patiala Staff Rules, 1954, hereinafter termed the Staff rules, under which the order of companypulsory retirement was made, was illegal and void.
This recommendation was made by the Revenue Minister and the Finance Minister who companystituted the members of the Finance Committee.
The Finance Committee, as provided in rr.
During the pendency of the appeal in the High Court Ram Prasad died and his widow was brought on record as his legal representative.
78 of 1961.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 19, 1962 of the Punjab High Court in Regular First Appeal No.
These recommendations were accepted by the Maharaja on April 8, 1941.
It states that by reason of the fact that the Patiala State Bank is an autonomous department it became necessary to define how are the rules applying to other State departments and the Patiala State Regulations applied to the Bank.
Therefore the Patiala Services Regulations companytinued to govern the members of the Patiala State Services even after they became integrated into the PEPSU Services.
It was specifically stated in the recommendation made by the Board of Directors that the internal management of the Bank shall be subject to rules and regulations framed by them.
However, it will be companyvenient to refer to Ram Prasad as the appellant.
The order was also challenged on the ground that it was mala fide.
On this the Cabinet supported the recommendations of the Finance Committee and submitted the same to the Maharaja.
On September 1,1985 bk he was promoted to the next higher grade on the establishment of the Patiala State Bank.
The substantial relief claimed by him in the suit was a declaration that r. 27 of th Staff rules was wholly uncons titutional, null and void for the reasons stated by him.
B. Agarwala, K. P. Bhandari and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
530 of 1964.
Ram Prasad challenged the order of companypulsory retirement passed by the Board on various grounds, by means of a suit institiuted in the Court of the Subordittate Judge, Patiala.
The Regulations were revised and re published in the year 1931.
On February 27, 1954, the President, in exercise of the powers vested in him in relation to PEPSU by the Proclamation, issued the Bank of Patiala Regulation and Management Order, 1954, hereinafter called the Regulation Order, t0 provide for the better regulation and management of the affair.,,
On June 11, 1958 the Board passed an order companypulsoriy retiring him from service.
Ex P. 8 quoted above, is headed Precis.
On the formation of the Union, the Patiala Services Regulations were made applicable to the entire territories of the Union by Ordinance No.
Bishan Narain, K. S. Chawla and R. N. Sachthey, for the res pondents.
Subsequently, they were again revised and re issued as the Patiala Services Regulations in the year 1947.
Ram Prasad originally entered serviced as a Clerk, in the year 1924, in the Patiala Saddar Treasury in what was then the Patiala State.
On April 1, 1949 he was promoted as Selection Grade Manager by the Board of Directors of the Bank in the grade of Rs.
of the said Bank.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Satyanarayana Raju, J. This appeal, on certificate granted by the High Court of Punjab, arises out of a suit filed by one Ram Prasad, against the State of Punjab, for a declaration that the order of companypulsory retirement passed by the latter against Wm was invalid.
Thereafter, he was promoted as Manager and posted to the Bhatinda branch of the Bank on April 1, 1944.
He was subsequently transferred in the same capacity to the Patiala State Bank on February 27,1984 Bk and was companyfirmed in his appointment.
On September 23, 1953 he was cc mpulsorily retired from service but was subsequently reinstated by the Government on June 10, 1954 since the order was legally defective.
Before entering into the merits of the appeal, it would be companyvenient to refer very briefly to the historical background of the legislation.
