- (1.) The petitioner joined service as Store Keeper in the Government Dyeing and Colico Printing Institute, Shahdara, Lahore, in December, 1940. In June, 1942 he was appointed Junior Clerk in the Store Purchase Office, Lahore, and in June, 1944, he was promoted as Inspector of Shops. After partition of the country, he was appointed Inspector, Weights and Measures, at Jullundur, by an order of the Director of Industries, Punjab, in 1951. He continued to serve in that post and was issued a notice dated August 19, 1968, by the Director of Industries, Haryana, to which State he had been allocated as a result of the reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab, informing him that he would retire from service on attaining the age of 55 years with effect from December 31, 1968. The notice has been challenged in the present petition.
(2.) Written Statement has been filed by the Deputy Director (Administration), Industries Department of the State of Haryana.
(3.) The first submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that he was no doubt appointed as Inspector, Weights and Measures, by the Director of Industries in 1951, but, after the enforcement of the Punjab Industries Department (State Service Class III) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter called the Rules), his appointing authority was the Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures, and the notice retiring him from service on attaining the age of 55 years under rule 5.32 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, could be issued by the appointing authority under the Rules or by the State Government who has been authorised to appoint Inspector of Weights and Measures, under section 15 of the Punjab Weights and Measures Enforcement Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act). It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner is governed by the said rules under which the appointing authority of an Inspector of Weights and Measures is the Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures. Such an appointment has, however, to be made with the approval of the Director of Industries, as has been prescribed in rule 7(2) of the Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in so far as he submits that the notice of three months retiring the petitioner on attaining the age of 55 years was to be given by the appointing authority, but the point for determination is - who is to be considered as the appointing authority, the officer who appointed him in fact in 1951 or the appointing authority mentioned in the Service Rules After bestowing my careful consideration on this question I am of the opinion that the appointing authority mentioned in the Service Rules or in the Act has to issue the notice under rule 5.32 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, and not the authority who originally appointed the Government official concerned. This is particularly so in the case of reorganised States, and I am supported in this view by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in The State of Punjab and others v. Sant Singh Dewa Singh, 1964 AIR(P&H) 480The notice had, therefore, to be issued by the Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures, whose designation has now been changed to Controller of Weights and Measures, and not by the Director of Industries.;