S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. - (1.) We take the view that this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is concluded in favour of the appellant by the recent judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 850 and 2008 of 1978 Union of India V. K. R. Tahiliani and another decided on 26th February, 1980. It, therefore, suffices to advert to the facts with relative brevity.
(2.) The appellant joined service in joint Punjab as a clerk in Class ill service on 11th December, 1945 in the Public Relations Department in 1966 he was working as a Head Assistant and at the time of the re-organisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab he was allocated to the State of Haryana. On 10th October, 1968 he was promoted as District Public Relations Officer and apparently continued to hold that office temporarily till the date of his compulsory retirement by the impugned order, annexure P. 1 dated the 25th of November, 1974. It is the common case that in 1974, rule 5.32 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume 11 and rule 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume I, Part I, were amended and it was by virtue of the amended provisions that the appellant was compulsorily retired. The appellant challenged the same by way of a writ petition and before the learned Single judge the three basic grounds taken were as follows: 1. The notice, annexure P. 1. Is illegal as it falls short of the requisite period of three months provided under the amended rule 3.26 of Volume 1; 2. The competent authority did not apply its mind before issuing the notice, annexure P. 1; and
(3.) The petitioner was a member of Class III service and remained as such till the date of service of the notice and consequently he could only be retired after attaining the age of 55 years. 3. As we are of the view that the appellant is now entitled to succeed under ground 3 above it would be apparently wasteful to advert to the other two grounds. The crux of the matter here is that the appellant claims to be a substantive member of Class II service and admittedly remained as such till the service of the notice upon him and, therefore, he could be retired only after attaining the age of 55 years It is his stand that merely because he was officiating in a post of the Class II service would not bring him within the ambit of the amended rules so as to become liable to compulsory retirement on attaining the age of 50 years as is the case with regard to the substantive members of Class I and Class II services.;