- (1.) Ram Sarup Jindal deceased/appellant herein (now legally represented by his son Padmesh Kumar Jindal), born on 20.8.1918, joined the services of the erstwhile princely State of Jind as Kanungo on 12.6.1940. He was confirmed in the said State. He was promoted as Saddar Kanungo on 11.5.1946 and Naib Tehsildar on 24.7.1976. On the merger of Jind State with the erstwhile State of Pepsu, he was integrated as Naib Tehsildar. He was promoted as Tehsildar on 28.10.1954 by the Pepsu Government. The State of Pepsu merged with the erstwhile State of Punjab with effect from 1.11.1956. He was selected and promoted to PCS (Executive) on 18.6.62 in the erstwhile State of Punjab. On the eve of reorganisation of the State of Punjab on November 1, 1966, he was allocated to the present State of Punjab. Ram Sarup Jindal retired as PCS (Executive) from the State of Punjab on attaining the age of 58 years on August 31, 1976 as per service rules applicable to the employees of the State of Punjab.
(2.) Ram Sarup Jindal filed Civil Suit No. 443-T of 27.10.1980/82 in the Court of Shri R.K. Tyagi, Sub Judge, 1st Class, Patiala (B), against his retirement on the plea that according to the condition of service applicable to the employees of the erstwhile princely State of Jind and that he was entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of 62 years. Learned trial Court vide his judgment and decree dated 16.4.1984 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The State filed Civil Appeal No. 22-T/86 of 23.7.1984 which was allowed by Shri M.S. Luna, learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide his judgment and decree dated 30.3.1987.
(3.) It is that judgment and decree of the first appellate court which has been appealed against by the plaintiff and which requires my examination of its sustainability or wages including subsistence allowance during suspension, the periodical increments, pay scale, leave, Provident Fund, Gratuity, confirmation, promotion, seniority, tenure or termination of service, compulsory or premature retirement, superannuation, pension, changing the age of superannuation, deputation and disciplinary proceedings. In view of the abovesaid judgment of the Supreme Court there should be no hesitation in concluding that change in the age of superannuation is certainly a condition of service.;