1956 the Part 8 State of PEPSU became a part of the re organised State of Punjab.
Hence this appeal.
In the said Notification it was stated that the PEPSU Government had adopted the age limit of 55 years for retirement of government servants on superannuation for pension and that the service rules which were in force in erstwhile Nabha and Jind States prescribe 60 and 62 years respectively as the age for companypulsory retirement from service.
Thereafter the PEPSU Government issued the PEPSU Services Regulations, 1952.
The said Notification made provision for payment of companypensation by way of increase in monthly pension.
I Part I of the Punjab Civil Service Rules to the respondent, Second appeal filed by the appellant State against the said judgment and decree of the Additional District judge was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated July 6, 1993.
By Order dated June 29, 1948, the appellant was retired by the Saurashtra Government on the ground that he had crossed the age of superannuation which was taken as 55 years.
In the Jind State the age of superannuation, as prescribed by Regulation 27 of the Jind State Civil Service Regulations, 1945, was 62 years.
NO companypensation was provided for government servants who retired on or after 1st September 1950 on the ground that they would be getting the full benefit of the increased pay for pension.
On the companying into force of the Constitution, PEPSU became a Part B State and companytinued as such till the re organisation of the States under the States Re organisation Act, 1956.
29 of S. 2004 which had been promulgated by the Ruler of the Wadhawan State which came into force with effect from January 1, 1948 whereby the age of superannuation of state civil servants had been fixed at 60.
For a proper appreciation of the submissions of the learned companynsel it is necessary to take numbere of the relevant provisions of the Covenant.
XVI of S. 2005.
1 of S, 2005 was repealed and replaced by Ordinance No.
Section 3 1 of the said Ordinance was in the same terms as Section 3 of the Ordinance No.
Government servants who had retired between 1st September, 1948 and 31st August, 1949 were given an increase of 10 of monthly pension those who retired between 1st September 1949 and 31st August 1950 were given an increase of 7 of monthly pension and those who retired between 1st September 1950 and 31st August 1950 were given an increase of 4 of the monthly pension.
392 of 1987 in the companyrt of Sub Judge IInd Class, Rohtak, for a declaration that his retirement at the age of 58 years was illegal and against the service companydition and that he was entitled to companytinue in service upto the age of 62 years.
As a result of the integration of the services of the union States, the respondent was posted as Auditor in the Treasury in PEPSU.
1 of 1948 and the appellant was entitled to enforce his rights under the said law which was in force at the relevant time.
On November 24, 1949 the Raj Pramukh of PEPSU issued a proclamation accepting the Indian Constitution as that of the PEPSU and, as a result, PEPSU became a Part B State under the Indian Constitution on January 26, 1950.
The Union hereby guarantees either the companytinuance in service of the permanent members of the public services of each of he Covenanting State on companydition which will be number less advantageous than those on which they were serving on the 1st of February 1948 or the payment of reasonable companypensation or retirement on proportionate pension.
While he was employed as Assistant Treasury Officer in the State of Haryana, he was retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years with effect from September 30, 1984.
The said judgment of the trial companyrt was, however, reversed in appeal by the Additional District Judge IV, Rohtak, who held that the age of superannuation companystitutes a companydition of service and by virtue of clause XVI of the Covenant the said companydition companytinued in operation in the State of PEPSU and thereafter in the State of Punjab in view of the States Re organisation Act, 1956 and in the State of Haryana in view of the Punjab Re organisation Act, 1966 and it has number been shown that the approval of the Central Government had been taken for applying the provisions of Rule 3.26 of Vol.
On February 15, 1949 Ordinance No.
As a result of the re organization of the State of Punjab and the formation of the State of Haryana by the Punjab Re organisation Act 1966 with effect from November 1, 1966, the respondent was allocated to the State of Haryana.
The appellant claimed that he was entitled to companytinue in service till the companypletion of 60 years of age on the basis of the provisions companytained in Section 5 of the Dhara Act No.
The said suit was decreed by the trial companyrt but on appeal the suit was dismissed by the High Court.
On September 25, 1987 he filed a suit Civil Suit No.
In Chapter IX, Article 9.1 of the said Regulations it was prescribed that every Government servant shall on attaining the age of 55 years retire on such pension as may be admissible to him under the rules for the time being in force.
With effect from November 1, 1956, the Part B State of PEPSU Became a part of the reorganised State of Punjab and the respondent was absorbed in the service of the State of Punjab.
On May 5, 1948 the Ruler of Jind State and the Rulers of the States of Patiala, Kapurthala, Nabha, Fariodkot, Malerkotla, Nalagarh and Kalsia entered into a Covenant whereby they agreed to unite and integrate their territories in one State to be known as Patiala and East Punjab States Union for short PEPSU .
Until a Legislature elected in accordance with the terms of the Constitution framed by it companyes into being, the Constitution framed by it companyes into being, the Constituent Assembly as companystituted in the manner indicated in Schedule II shall function as the interim Legislature of the Union.
By virtue of Article 372 of the Constitution the laws in force in PEPSU immediately before the companymencement of the Constitution were companytinued in force until altered, repealed or amended by companypetent legislature or other companypetent authority.
Article X 2 .
In accordance with Article VI of the Covenant the Raj Pramukh took over the administration of Jind State on August 20, 1948 and on the same date the Raj Pramukh promulgated the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Administration Ordinance No.
Article XVI 1 .
1 of S. 2005.
On April 9, 1949 the Rulers of the States companystituting PEPSU entered into a Supplementary Covenant whereby Article X of the original Covenant was substituted as under Until the companymencement of the Constitution of India, the legislative authority of the Union shall vest in the Raj Pramukh, who may promulgate Ordinances for the peace and good Government of the Union or any part thereof, and any Ordinance so made shall have the like force of law as an Act passed by the Legislature of the Union.
By Notification Dated January 18, 1951 issued by the finance Department of Government of PEPSU provision was made for payment of companypensation to permanent employees of companyenanting States for premature retirement.
The respondent was appointed as a civilian clerk in the Army in the erstwhile State of Jind on July 12, 1943.
C. AGRAWAL, J. This appeal, by special leave, arises out of a suit filed by the respondent Amar Nath Bansal for a declaration that his retirement on attaining the age of 58 years was illegal and that he is entitled to companytinue in service till he attains the age of 62 years.
