STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus AMAR NATH BANSAL

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 262 · Decided: 15-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
v. 
AMAR NATH BANSAL 
JANUARY 15, 1997 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
S e1vice law-Superannuation age-Jind State Civil Se1vices Regulations, 
Regn. I. 27-Applicability-Jind State Regulation stood repealed by Ordinance 
No. 1 of S. 2005 and Ordinance No. 16 of S. 2005 issued by the Raj Pramukh 
C of PEPSU-Notlzwithstanding the fact that Ordinances were tempora1y but 
intended to repeal the Regulationfora/l the time-Held, employee of erstwhile 
Jind State later becoming the employee of PEPSU and then Punjab State 
cannot claim to continue in se1vice up to 62 years on basis of Regn. 27 of 
Jind Service Regulations-General Clause Act 1897. S. 6-f'EPSU Seivice 
D Regulations (1952), Ait.9.1. 
E 
Constitution of India. A1t. l~Treaty between Rulers.to establish new 
sovereign-Held, its an act of State and clauses in such treaty to recognise 
rights of the subjects of ex-sovereign are not capable of enforcement in Cowts 
of new sovereign. · 
The Respondent was a civilian clerk in the Army of the erstwhile 
State of Jind. As per the Jind State Civil Service Regulation, 1945, the age 
of superannuation, as prescribed by Kego. 27 was 62 years. 
On May 5, 1948 Ruler of the Jind State entered in to covenant with 
F 
its neighbour rulers of the States and unite their territories in one state 
to be known as PEPSU. As a result of integration of the services of the 
Union State, the respondent was posted as Auditor in the Treasury in 
PEPSU. 
On the coming into force of the Constitution of India, PEPSU 
G became a part B state and continued as such, till the re-organisation of 
the state under the State reorganisation Act, 1956, then part B state of 
PEPSU became part of the recognised State of Punjab and the respondent 
was absorbed in the service of the State of Punjab. A~ a result of the 
re-organisation of the State of Punjab by the Punjab, re-organisation Act, 
H 1966, the respondent was allocated to the State of Haryana and while he 
262 
I --r-
( 
STATE v. A.N. BANSAL 
263 
was employed as Assistant Treasury Officer in the State of Haryana he A 
retired from the service, on attaining the age of 58 years. 
The respondent filed a civil suit for declaration that his retirement 
was illegal and against the service conditions and that he was entitled to 
continue in service up to the age of 62 years, as per the Jind State Civil 
Service Regulation, 1945 which was still applicable to him. The suit was B 
dismissed by the Trial court on the ground that the service conditions of 
the respondent were governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules, which 
prescribes 58 years as the superannuation age. In appeal, the appellate 
court reversed the judgement and held that the age of superannuation 
constitutes a condition of service and by v"irtue of the covenants entered C 
into by the rulers of PEPSU, the said condition continued in operation in 
the State of Punjab, in view of State re-organisation Act. 1956 and in the 
State of Haryana in view of the Punjab re-organisation Act, 1966. 
Appellant-State filed the second appeal in the High Court, which was 
dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 
The appellant contended that after the formation of PEPSU in 1948 
D 
the conditions of service of the respondents were governed by the rules 
applicable in the State of Patiala. After framing of the PEPSU Service 
Rules in 1952, the Jind Civil Service Rules, 1945 ceased to be applicable E 
in the State of PEPSU. The respondents were governed by the PEPSU 
Service Rules 1952, till the Punjab service Rules became applicable, 
wherein age of retirement was 58 years. Therefore. he cannot claim to 
continue in service on the basis of the provisions contained in the Jind 
Civil Service Regulation, 1945. 
On the other hand, respondent contended that the Covenant was the 
constitution for the newly constituted State of PEPSU and the provisions 
contained in the Covenant were binding on PEPSU as well as on the 
successor States. 
A)lowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD .: 1~1. The Covenant entered into by the Rulers of the inde-
pendent States which had joined together to form the PEPSU was a treaty 
entered into by the Rulers of States as a result of which, a new sovereign 
F 
G 
was established over the territories of the covenanting States. The covenant H 
264 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1997) 1 S. C.R. 
A is, therefore, an Act of State and the law regarding the act of state is well 
settled. That the residents of the territo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.