- (1.) This regular second appeal is directed by the defendants (appellants herein) against the judgment and decree dated 13.10.1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, whereby the appeal of the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 22.11.1986 passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Sangrur has been dismissed.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff (respondent herein) was appointed as Clerk in the erstwhile State of Jind on 19.10.1943. In the Jind State the age of superannuation, as prescribed by Regulation 27 of the Jind State Civil Service Regulations, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') was 62 years. On 5.5.1948, the Ruler of Jind State and the Rulers of the States of Patiala, Kapurthala, Nabha, Faridkot, Malerkotla, Nalagarh and Kalsia entered into a Covenant whereby they agreed to unite and integrate their territories into one State to be known as Patiala and East Punjab States Union (hereinafter referred to as 'PEPSU'). As a result of the integration of the services of the union States, the respondent was posted as Clerk in the office District and Sessions Judge at Sangrur as PEPSU. On the coming into force of the Constitution, PEPSU became a Part B State and continued as such till the reorganization of the States under the States Reorganization Act, 1956 and the respondent was absorbed in the service of the State of Punjab. Due to the reorganization of the State of Punjab and the formation of the State of Haryana by the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 w.e.f. 1.11.1966, the respondent was allocated to the State of Punjab. He was retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years w.e.f. 31.3.1984 while he was working as Assistant in the office of District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur. On 5.6.1985, he filed Civil Suit No.215 of 1985 in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Sangrur for declaration that his retirement at the age of 58 years was illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires, mala fide, null and void, against the principles of natural justice and against service rules and regulations governing him and that he was entitled to remain in service upto the age of 62 years. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff never opted for Rule 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume I, Part I and the Government Pleader could not show that such concurrence was obtained from the Central Government. The judgment of the trial Court was affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, who held that the age of superannuation constitutes a condition of service and by virtue of Ordinance No.XVI of 2005 BK as amended by Ordinance No.XVIII of 2006 BK had lapsed after the expiry of six months and supplementary covenant was also held to be without authority. It was held that according to Gooderham and Worts Ltd. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corpn., 1949 AIR(PC) 90, the old rules and regulations of Erstwhile Jind State were revived. According of Ordinance XVI of the Covenant the said condition continued in operation in the State of PEPSU and thereafter in the State of Punjab in view of the States Reorganization Act, 1956 and it has not been shown that the approval of the Central Government had been taken for applying the provisions of Rule 3.26 of Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume I, Part I to the respondent. Aggrieved against this judgment and decree, the State of Punjab has come in second appeal.
(3.) I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the appellants-State. However, as no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, the records of the Courts below have been perused carefully.;