Harcharan Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

M.S. Liberhan, J.—The short question raised in this Writ petition is what should be the age of retirement on superannuation of the Petitioner who was employed as a Teacher in Erstwhile State of Pepsu i.e. whether it is 60 year or 58 years.

The facts are not in dispute. The Petitioner joined the service of the Pepsu State on April 1950 in place of one Arjan Singh who had retired on attaining the age of superannuation the age of 55 years. The date of birth of the Petitioner is April l, 1932. According to the Service Book, his date of appointment is April 29, 1950. The, Petitioner continued working at various posts When Pepsu merged into State of Punjab with effect from November 1, 1956.

The charter of the claim of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner was governed by Rule and Regulation of Erstwhile State of Pepsu known as Pepsu. Civil Service Regulations and belonged to the inferior service as envisaged by the Regulations. Under Rule 2.28 of the Pepsu Service Regulations, 1952, the age of superannuation for retirement of a person holding the post categorised as inferior post within meaning of Pepsu Service Regulations was 60 years. In view of Section 115 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 the condition of service with respect to his age for superannuation cannot be changed i.ereduced to 58 years.

We have gone thought the Writ Petition as well as the Rules and Regulations.

Rule 228 of the Pepsu Service Regulation, 1952 (hereinafter after referred to as Pepsu. Regulations) defines Inferior Servant to mean a Government Servant include in the list given in Appendix-I not find mention. Consequently, a person appointed Teacher canto the learned Counsel for the Petitioner repeatedly to show any Teacher has been categorised as inferior post in the Pepsu Cadre. He has been unable to show any such provisions Specifically in the Appendix mentioned above enumerating inferior posts the post of Teacher is not included as an inferior post. There is the dispute that the age of retirement of persons holding posts other than the inferior posts under Pepsu Regulations was 55 years which has subsequently been raised to 58 years after merger of Pepsu with the State of Punjab. No doubt in view of the provisions of Section 115 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1950, the Petitioner enjoys the Protection against change in the conditions of his service, but learned Counsel for the Petitioner has miserably failed to point out in the course of arguments that in Pepsu State the age of superannuation for retirement of employees of the class to which the Petitioner belongs was ever 60 years.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner referred Regular Second Appeal No. 902 of 1964 State of Punjab v. Bachan singh driver decided on November 30, 1965 and Regular Second Appeal No. 1855 of 1974, decided on September (sic). Bachan singh case (Supra) was case relating to a driver who was found to be a Class IV Servant by the trial Count as well as by the appellate Court and the same finding was affirmed by the High Court. In view or the fact that the Driver was treated as Class IV employee of Pepsu, it was found that be held the intenor class post as envisaged by the Pepsu Regulations. Consequently he was entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years. The post of the Drivers has been specifically mentioned in the list of appointments classed as in ferior services shown in Appendix. The post of Driver being in-terior class post was never in dispute before the High Court. (sic) cited is part material neither on fact nor on law involved in the case in hand. Similarly in the other case the (sic) was holding the post of Carpenter which was (sic) Class IV post and categorised as an inferior post. Re-designation of post was round to be of no Consequence and (sic) age of 60 years was held to be a condition of service protected by (sic) of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956. Again, the fact and the law laid down therein are totally irrelevant to the controversy in hand.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner referred to Udham singh Bhatti v. State of Punjab and Anr. 1990 R.C.J. 36 where the learned Judge found that prima face for the purpose of granting stay during the pendancy of the writ petition the petition was holding an inferior post as envisaged by the Regulation and no finding were given as such. We fall to understand how it is a precedent, What point of law is laid down in this authority and how it is relevant to the controversy in dispute.

In view of the fact that the Petitioner does not belong to an Interior class of service envisaged by the pepsu Service Regulations, 1952, his age of retirement cannot be taken to be 60 years. The Submission that the age of retirement of the Petitioner being a Teacher is 60 years, is bereft of any logic or reasoning particularly When the contrary inference can be drawn from the letter of appointment, Copy Annexure P2, by which the Petitioner was appellate against the post of the Arjan singh in the grade of Rs. (sic) per month on the letters retirement on attaining the age of 55 years.

In view of the above observations we find no force in the Writ Petition. The same is dismissed, with No order as to costs.