Civil Revision No. 3981 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3981 of 2010 Date of decision : June 29, 2010 Sharda Yadav ....Petitioner versus Haryana Welfare Society for Hearing and Speech Handicapped and anr. ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Plaintiff Sharda Yadav has filed instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India having remained un-successful in both the courts below in securing ad-interim injunction. Plaintiff is employed as Gardner with defendant-respondent no. 1 Haryana Welfare Society for Hearing and Speech Handicapped which is a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act. The plaintiff's claim is that being class-IV employee, he is entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years as per Punjab Civil Services Rules (in short, the Rules) as applicable to Haryana but the defendants intended to retire the plaintiff on attaining the age of 58 years. The plaintiff, therefore, filed suit seeking injunction restraining the defendants from retiring plaintiff on Civil Revision No. 3981 of 2010 -2- 30.6.2010 at the age of 58 years. The plaintiff also sought temporary injunction to the same effect during the pendency of the suit. The suit was fixed before the trial court on 10.6.2010. Pursuant to notice, defendants put in appearance and sought adjournment for filing written statement as well as reply to injunction application. The case was adjourned to 18.8.2010 for the same. However, request of counsel for the plaintiff for ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from retiring the plaintiff on 30.6.2010 was declined by the trial court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gurgaon vide impugned order dated 10.6.2010, Annexure P/4. The plaintiff preferred appeal against the said order but the same has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge/Vacation Judge, Gurgaon vide impugned judgment dated 23.6.2010, Annexure P/7. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that defendant no. 1 Society is fully funded by the State Government and therefore, the Rules are applicable to the service of the plaintiff. As per the said Rules, superannuation age of class-IV employees of the State Government has been fixed at 60 years and therefore, the plaintiff cannot be retired at the age of 58 years. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but find no force therein. The Rules are applicable to only employees of the State Government and not to any Society or Corporation of the State Government. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that defendant no. 1 is fully Civil Revision No. 3981 of 2010 -3- funded by the State Government even then the Rules which are applicable to only State Government employees would not automatically become applicable to employees of defendant no. 1 Society. The defendants have pleaded that the Rules have not been adopted by them and there is no plea of the plaintiff that the Rules have been adopted by the defendants. Admittedly, the plaintiff does not get salary from the consolidated fund of the State Government. The Rules are applicable to State Government employees who get salary from consolidated fund of the State. For the reasons aforesaid, it becomes apparent that the Rules are not applicable to the service of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim the benefit of the said Rules. Consequently, there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders of the courts below so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is, thus, found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. ( L.N. Mittal ) June 29, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'