Surprisingly the respondent challenged the permission so granted by the learned Sub Judge, Patiala, and the companysequential retirement order on the ground that the authority to grant such permission was number the learned Sub Judge but the Honble Chief Justice Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court.
At that time he voluntarily addressed a letter on 6 7 1977 to the Sub Judge, Patiala, under whom he was serving, seeking permission to retire voluntarily.
Subsequently, the Nabha High Court was merged with the Pepsu State on 1 9 1948.
The respondent was appointed as Nazir Niabat Amloh on 1 5 1947 by the Registrar of the High Court of Nabha.
This companytention was raised on the basis of Section 115 7 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.
The learned Sub Judge granted the permission and the respondent was retired from service w.e.f.
To sustain his companytention, he filed a civil suit challenging the order of voluntary retirement.
On appeal, the appellate companyrt Additional District Judge, Patiala accepted the companytention of the respondent and allowed the appeal.
It may be numbered by offering voluntary retirement he avoided disciplinary action.
Disciplinary action for unauthorised absence from duty was initiated against the respondent.
This appeal by special leave is preferred against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court under the following circumstances.
Later on, it was merged along with Pepsu with Punjab State.
It is under these circumstances the present appeal by way of special leave has been preferred.
