SHRI R.R. BHANOT versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 04-01-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, YOGESHWAR DAYAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SHRI R.R. BHANOT 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JANQARY 4, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] 
B 
,. _ 
Service Law : Pensiott-Employee serving in erstwhile State of Punjab. 
since 1937-Provisional allocation to State of Himachal Pradesh in 196fr-
Employee attained superannuation in 197o-Meanwhile Order of Government c 
of India under s.82(2) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, finally allocat-
ing employee to State of Punjab w.e.f. 1.11.1966-Held, employee naving been 
finally allocated to State of Punjab w.e.f. 1.11.1966 would be deemed to be 
continuously serving that State from said date and that State would give pen-
sion and other retiral benefits to employee. 
D 
The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966: Section 82(2)-Allocation of 
employee to a State-Power of Government of India-Employee would be 
deemed to be in service of the state to which he was finally allocated by 
Government of India. 
The appellant entered service of the erstwhile State of Punjab in the E 
year 1937. On the reorganisation of the State, the appellant was 
provisionally allocated to the State of Bimachal Pradesh w.e.f. 1.11.1966. 
_).._ 
The appellant after complying with the order, sent a representation to the 
Union of India against his allocation to the said State. Meanwhile the 
Bimachal Pradesh Government by an order dated 20.3.1969 prematurely F 
retired the appellant from service w.e.f. 14.5.1968. The appellant challenged 
the said order by filing a writ petition before the High Court. During the 
pendency of the writ petition an order dated 19.5.1969 passed by the 
Government of India under s.82(2) of the Punjab _Re-Organisation Act, 
1966, stating that the appellant was deemed to have been finally allotted G 
to the State of Punjab w.e.f. 1.11.1966 was brought to the notice of the 
--,).. 
Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of 
appellant's premature retirement. Thereafter the appellant represented 
before the Department concerned as also the Government of Himachal 
Pradesh for payment of arrears of his salary and for further posting, but 
the authorities did not take any action on the ground that since the H 
1 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
appellant was finally allocated to the State of Punjab it was for that 
Government to lootc Into !lie {Ilatter. In the meantime the appellant at-
tained the age of 58 years in 1970. Thereafter he sent various repre-
sentations to the authorities concerned in the State of Punjab as also the 
State of Himachal Pradesh for grant of his pension and other post-retiral 
B 
benefits but in vain. Ultimately the appellant tiled a writ petition before 
the Punjab and Haryana High Court which dismissed the same in limine. 
Hence the appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
C 
HELD : 1.1. The appellant having been finally allocated to the State 
of Punjab w.e.f. 1.11.1966, he shall be deemed to be continuously serving 
that State from the said date and it is the State of Punjab which has to 
give pension and other retiral benefits to the appellant. [6-D] 
1.2. The appellant had joined the service in the erstwhile State of 
D Punjab in 1937. On the date he was prematurely retired by the State of 
Himachal pradesh, he had already served the Government for about 32 
years:. He was undoubtedly entitled to the grant of pension and other 
post-retiral benefits. [6-D, E] 
• 
E 
1.3. Simply because the appellant failed to submit joining report to 
the State of Punjab after the judgment of the High Court quashing the 
order of his premature retirement, he could not be denied his right to 
pension and other benefits to which he was entitled on his attaining 
superannuation. It was for the State of Himachal Pradesh to have 
reinstated the appellant in service after the High Court judgment and 
F 
thereafter relieved him to join the State of Punjab. [6-E, F) 
2.1. Consequent upon the High Court quashing the premature retire-
ment of the appellant by its judgment dated September 29, 1969, the 
appellant shall be deemed to be working with the State of Himachal 
G Pradesh till Septemeber 30, 1969. The said State should pay the arr.ears of 
salary due to the appellant till September 30, 1969. [6H; 7A] 
2.2. Since the appellant did not join service with the State of Punjab 
from October 1, 1969 to December 31, 1970, be shall not be entitled to any 
salary for the said period. The State of Punjab shall treat the said period 
H to be leave
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.