LexPAIARA LAL versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A PAIARALAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. AUGUST 8, 1999 B [SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] Service Law : State Re-Organisation Act, 1956-Proviso to Section 115(7)-Condi- C tions of Service--Applicability-PEPSU Regulations providing 60 years as the age of retirement for Police Constables in the State of PEPSU--State of PEP SU later on merged with Punjab State-Punjab State prescribing 58 years as age of reti~ement for Police-Constables-Police Constable employed with State of PEPSU allotted to Punjab State upon merge~o previous or general D approval of the Central Government after merger to vary the age of superan- nuation-Age of retirement of allotted Constabie-Held, the proviso to Sec- tion 115(7) makes it clear that the service conditions of the allotted employees cannot be varied to their disadvantage by the State to which they are allotted, under re- organisation, after 1111/ 1956, except with the prev£ous approval of E the Central Govemment---lt was not open to the Punjab State to retire allotted Constable on completion of 58 years. Appellant was appointed on 4.U.1949 as a Constable in the Police Department of the erstwhile State of PEPSU (Patiala and East Punjab States Union). The age of retirement under PEPSU Regulations in the F State of PEPSU for Class-IV employees including Constables was 60 years. The State of PEPSU merged later on 1.11.1956 with the new State of.Punjab and the appellant was after 1.11.1956 allotted to the State of Punjab. The appellant remained a Class-IV Employee throughout in the State of Pun- jab. The age of retirement applicable to Constables in the State of Punjab G was 58 years and the Superintendent of Police, Punjab rejecting the contention of the appellant that his service conditions were protected under Section 115 (7) uf the States Re- Organisation Act, 1956 and he should be allowed to continue till completion of 60 years, passed orders regarding his Superannuation on completion of 58 Years as per the Punjab H Rules. 386 ... P AIARA LAL v. STATE 387 Appellant challenged the validity of the said order in a civil suit A which was decreed by the trial Court holding that in view of the proviso to S.115(7) of the Act, the appellant was entitled to continue in service upto 60 years as per PEPSU Regulations. Appeal filed by State of Punjab against the order of the trial Court was dismissed by the first appellate Court. Against the order of the first appellate Court, respondent-State, B preferred Second Appeal in the High Court which was allowed by a Single Judge, without making any reference to the proviso to Section 115(7) of the States Re-Organisation Act, by following the Division Bench Judge· ment in T1ipat Singh v. State of Punjab, (CWP 8186of1994) dated 8.9.1994. Against the judgment of the Single Judge, the appellant has preferred the C present appeal. The appellant contended that the proviso to Section 115(7) of the Act was not given effect to; and that the distinction between persons who were before merger and after merger in Class IV till retirement, the category to which the appellant belonged, and persons who after merger were D promoted to Class III in the State of Punjab, was not noticed by the High Court. The respondent contended that ttie High Court has rightly applied to the appellant the age of retirement applicable to him at the time of his E retirement in the State of Punjab; and alternatively, that even assuming the PEPSU Regulations were applicable to him, the appellant was not entitled to continue upto 60 years in PEPSU as he was a Class IV employee drawing more than Rs. 200/· per month at the time of his retirement. Allowing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1.1. The proviso to Section 115(7) of the States Re-Organisa- tion Act; .1956 makes it clear that the service conditions of the allotted employees cannot be varied to their disadvantage by the State to which they are allotted, upon re- organisation, after 1.11.1956, excepi with the G previous approval of the Central Government. (392-H; 393-A] 1.2. The Memorandum of the Central Government dated 11.5.1957 which was communicated to all the States gave general approval for variation of certain specific conditions of service. The said Memorandum does not refer to the age of superannuation as one of the conditions of H 388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A service for the variation of which general approval is given by the C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.