RSA No. 260 of 2008 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 14.9.2009 (i) RSA No. 260 of 2008 State of Punjab and others ......Appellants Versus Constable Ajit Singh .......Respondent (ii) RSA No. 174 of 2008 State of Punjab and others ......Appellants Versus Rtd. Constable Gurdial Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Ms. Ambica Luthra, AAG, Punjab. None for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). This order shall dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 260 of 2008 and 174 of 2008, as both these cases raise common questions of law and facts. However, for facility of reference, the facts are taken from RSA No. 260 of 2008. RSA No. 260 of 2008 [ 2 ] The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration that the plaintiff shall be deemed to have retired on attaining the age of 60 years was decreed. The plaintiff-respondent jointed the Police Department on 29.6.1954 in the erstwhile State of Pepsu. With the merger of State of Pepsu with the State of Punjab with effect from 1.11.1956, the services of the plaintiff also stood allotted to the State of Punjab. In terms of the service conditions prevailing in the State of Pepsu, the age of superannuation was 60 years, whereas in terms of the service conditions prevailing in the State of Punjab, the age of superannuation was 58 years. The question whether the age of retirement in the erstwhile State of Pepsu would be relevant for the erstwhile employee of the State of Pepsu, whose services came to be allotted to the State of Punjab, came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Piara Lal v. State of Punjab and another, AIR 1997 SC 3420, wherein it was held to the following effect:- "...Neither in the Courts below, nor before us, was any order of the Central Governmnment issued in exercise of powers under the proviso to Section 115 (7) of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956 relied upon by the respondent to say that the State of Punjab while prescribing 58 years as the age of superannuation for `Constables' had obtained approval of the Central Government either generally RSA No. 260 of 2008 [ 3 ] or specifically. There is no dispute ebfore us that the age of retirement is a condition of service and that the age of retirement in PEPSU for class IV employees including constables was 60 years. In as much as there is no previous or general approval after 1.11.1956 to vary the age of superannuation from 60 years to 58 years, it was not open to the Superintendent of Police, Punjab to retire the appellant on completion of 58 years. The High Court erred in law in not noticing the above authorities and statutory provisions and in spplying teh age of superannuation applicable to Constable recruited in the State of Punjab." In view of the aforesaid judgment, I do no find any patent illegality or irregularity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeals. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 14.9.2009 ds