- (1.)State of Rajasthan has preferred this Civil Appeal to assail the judgment and order dated 19.3.2004 in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.136/1995. By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the Second Appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and decreed the Suit of Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) with a finding that Respondent No.1 had been illegally made to superannuate on 19.6.1974 at the age of 55 years, as prescribed under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1951'). The High Court has also declared that Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) was entitled to continue in service upto the age of 58 years, i.e., the age of retirement as per the Central Civil Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). The consequent benefits like pay, increments and other service benefits have also been granted to Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff).
(2.)The essential facts relevant for deciding the issue raised in this appeal are not in dispute as indicated hereinafter. Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) was appointed initially in the State of Ajmer and was governed by service conditions in the Regulations. The State of Ajmer was a Centrally Administered Part 'C' State till its integration with the State of Rajasthan w.e.f. 01.11.1956. Respondent No.1 was absorbed in the services of the State of Rajasthan from that date as Cane Development Assistant. Thus, his service at the time of re- organisation came to be governed generally by Rules of 1951. As provided under these Rules, Respondent No.1 was made to retire on attaining the age of 55 years on 19.6.1974.
(3.)Respondent No.1 filed Suit No.89/1976 at Jaipur claiming that he was illegally retired at the age of 55 years and also sought a decree that he is entitled to continue in service till 30.6.1977 under the Regulations and was entitled to consequential benefits of pay, increments, seniority, promotions etc. On contest made by the State of Rajasthan, the Suit was dismissed with a finding that the services of Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) were governed by the Rules of 1951 which prescribed the age of retirement as 55 years.