I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) The petitioner who was initially employed as Carpenter-cum-Mason on work-charge basis in the erstwhile PEPSU State and was allocated to the composite State of Punjab 011 account of the merger of the two States in the year 1956, impugns the action of respondent No 3-Executive Engineer, P. W. D. (B. & R. Branch), Patiala, in discharging him from service on attainment of the age of superannuation vide order dated 6th July, 1976 (Annexure P-2).
(2.) His challenge to this order is two fold : (i) According to the Pepsu Service Regulations which were applicable to him prior to the coming into force of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956, he was to continue in service upto the age of 60 years being a Class IV employee and this condition of his service could not be altered or treated to have been altered without the prior permission of the Government of India in terms of sub-section (7) of section 15 of the above noted Act; (ii) his appointing authority being the Superintending Engineer, the Executive Engineer (respondent No. 3) could not legally discharge him from service. As against this, the claim of the respondent authorities is that though prior to the merger of the States of Pepsu and Punjab, the petitioner was on the work-charge establishment yet his conditions of service were not governed by the Pepsu Service Regulations and as a result of the merger of the two States he automatically came to be governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules according to which he was to retire at the age of 58 years and has so been retired vide orders Annexures P2. While admitting that the service of the petitioner were regularised by the Superintending Engineer vide his order dated 21st May, 1973 (Annexure P3), it is denied that the Executive Engineer (respondent No 3) was not competent to retire him.
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length I find that this petition deserves to succeed. It is not in dispute before ire that in case the petitioner is held to be governed by the Pepsu Service Regulations then he was to reach the age of retirement at 60 and not at 58 as is laid down in the Punjab Civil Service Rules. A reading of regulation 1.3 with regulation 2.28 of the Pepsu Service Regulations makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner being a Government servant was clearly covered by these regulations.;