Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Hari Parshad Dewan on 25 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056829
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:056829
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
125
RSA-1768-1992
Date of decision: 25.04.2024
STATE OF PUNJAB ......Appellant
VERSUS
HARI PARSHAD DEWAN .......Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present: - Mr. Vipan Pal Yadav, Addl. A.G. Punjab
for the appellant-defendant-State.
Mr. Shubham Pathania, Advocate for
Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate
for the respondent.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. The appellant-defendant-State of Punjab is in appeal against the
judgment and decree dated 01.02.1992 passed by the Additional District
Judge, Chandigarh whereby he has reversed the judgment and decree dated
12.06.1986 passed by the Sub Judge, First Class, Chandigarh in Civil Suit
No. 262-A dated 19.11.1984 whereby the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for
permanent injunction was dismissed.
2. Briefly summarized the facts of the present case are that the
respondent-plaintiff filed the Civil Suit for permanent injunction for
restraining the appellant-defendant/State of Punjab from superannuating the
respondent-plaintiff on attaining the age of 58 years on 30.11.1984 and for a
declaration that he is entitled to be retained in service upto the age of 60
years.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056829
RSA-1768-1992 -2-
3. It was averred in the suit that the respondent-plaintiff joined
service in erstwhile princely State of Nabha on 05.01.1948 as a Stenographer
and his date of birth was recorded as 04.11.1926. According to the rules and
regulations applicable at the time of joining of services by the respondent-
plaintiff in Nabha State, the prescribed age of retirement was 60 years.
Thereafter, when Pepsu was formed, the State of Nabha merged with it. On
01.11.1956, Pepsu merged with the State of Punjab. The respondent-plaintiff
averred that by virtue of the covenant entered into between the merging
states, he is entitled to be retained in service upto the age of 60 years and
cannot be superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years. Hence, the instant
suit was filed.
4. Reply was filed by the appellant-defendant-State of Punjab to
the effect that according to the service rules of Pepsu, the age of retirement
was 55 years and after merger of Pepsu with Punjab on 01.11.1956, the
respondent-plaintiff was to be governed by the Punjab rules as per which the
employees were required to be retired at the age of 58 years. It was averred
that all law and regulations that were in force within the State of Patiala
were to become applicable to all the territories of Pepsu including erstwhile
territory of the Nabha State when Pepsu was formed on 01.09.1948 and that
all the employees of Pepsu, irrespective of their previous region of
employment, were to be retired on attaining the age of 58 years. When Pepsu
merged with the State of Punjab on 01.11.1956 the respondent-plaintiff like
many others was given an option to opt for the rules of Pepsu or Punjab
rules. The respondent-plaintiff opted for the Punjab rules under which the
age of superannuation was 58 years and as such, he was estopped from
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056829
RSA-1768-1992 -3-
averring that he is still entitled to continue in the service till attaining the age
of 60 years as per the erstwhile rules of Nabha State.
5. After pleadings were completed and issues were framed, parties
led their respective evidence.
6. On consideration of the evidence led by the respective parties,
the Sub Judge, First Class, Chandigarh recorded a finding that it could not be
said that on the re-organisation of the State in 1956 when Pepsu merged with
Punjab, the rules of erstwhile Nabha State fixing age of retirement of 60
years had any further application. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench
judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP-2481 of 1980 as
per which the rules of the State of Punjab were to become applicable with
effect from the year 1956 as per which the age of retirement was fixed at 58
years. The suit was accordingly dismissed vide judgment and decree dated
12.06.1986.
7. Aggrieved thereof, an appeal was preferred by the respondent-
plaintiff before the District Judge, Chandigarh. The said appeal was allowed
vide judgment and decree dated 01.02.1992. The Additional District Judge,
held that it was undisputedly a case that the respondent-plaintiff had been
appointed as a permanent Stenographer in the erstwhile State of Punjab
w.e.f. 05.01.1948 and his date of birth being 04.11.1926, he was to retire on
attaining the age of 60 years as per Article XVI of the Covenant Ex.P1 as
under. It was thus held that Article XVI of the Covenant would protect the
rights of the plaintiff and service conditions with the Pepsu State could not
be changed to his disadvantage without payment of reasonable compensation
or of proportionate pension.
8. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal was filed.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056829
RSA-1768-1992 -4-
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the
judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in CWP-2481 of 1980, squarely
applied to the facts of this case and that as per the said judgment, the
employees of the erstwhile Nabha State merged with the other State to form
Patiala and East Punjab States Union known as Pepsu on 20.08.1948. It
became a B-Class State after the promulgation of the Constitution of India
on 26.01.1950. The Raj-Pramukh of Pepsu framed service rules, which were
notified on 18.01.1951 which were framed under proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution of India. As per the said service rules, the age of retirement
was reduced from 60 years to 58 years. It was later that Pepsu merged with
the State of Punjab in 1956 and that the age of 58 years having been
prescribed under the 1951 rules, hence, the respondent-plaintiff had
superannuated on attaining of the said age itself.
10. Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has reiterated his
contention as have been noticed by the ADJ, Chandigarh and has claimed
that his service terms cannot be altered to his disadvantage.
11. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone
through the evidence with their able assistance.
12. The reliance of the respondent is solely on the Clause XVI of
the Covenant Ex. P1 executed at the time of merger of State of Nabha with
PEPSU.
13. It is further seen that the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh
has placed reliance on the Article XVI of the Covenant Ex. P1 which was
executed between Rulers of the erstwhile princely States at the time of the
formation of Pepsu wherein it had guaranteed the continuance of service on
the conditions that were not to be lesser advantageous than those on which
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056829
RSA-1768-1992 -5-
they were serving. It is also not been in dispute that the service rules were
thereafter modified by the service rules notified by the Pepsu State in 1951.
There is nothing on record that the said service rules whereby the age was
reduced from 60 to 58 years was ever challenged by the respondent-plaintiff
in an appropriate proceeding. The above service rules were applicable as on
the date when the Pepsu merged with the State of Punjab in the year 1956
and there is no reference to any saving clause under which Article XVI of
the Covenant between State of Nabha & Pepsu was saved or protected.
Hence, the appellant-defendant-State of Punjab is governed by the
agreement as stood on the date of its merger. The service rules having been
already modified thereby reducing the age of superannuation from 60 to 58,
hence, the successor State i.e. the appellant-defendant -State of Punjab
would be bound to discharge liability and on the service rules as were in
force on the date of merger. It is not in dispute that the said covenant had a
binding force, however, the said binding force is only with respect to the
signatories to the said agreement and as the State of Punjab was not a
signatory to the said covenant. There are no documents available on record
on the basis whereof the terms and conditions incorporated in the said
covenant may be extended or held binding and applicable even in respect to
the State of Punjab.
14. I hence, find that the judgment and decree passed by the
Additional District Judge, Chandigarh giving prominence to Article XVI of
the covenant executed with the State of Nabha at the stage of merger with
Pepsu cannot override the subsequent merger of Pepsu with the State of
Punjab and be given effect to notwithstanding the subsequent rules modified
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056829
RSA-1768-1992 -6-
by the Pepsu State, which had already been held binding on all employees of
PEPSU, at the time of merger in the State of Punjab.
15. For the foregoing reason, the present appeal is allowed. The
judgment and decree dated 01.02.1992 passed by the Additional District
Judge, Chandigarh is set aside and the judgment and decree dated
12.06.1986 passed by the Sub Judge, First Class, Chandigarh is restored.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
APRIL 25, 2024 JUDGE
Vishal Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
