R.S.A. No.498 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.498 of 1998 Date of decision:07.07.2010. State of Haryana ...Appellant Versus Prem Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Ms. Maloo Chahal, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Rakesh Punj, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit in part by ordering invalidation of the order dated 15.11.1990 vide which pension cut (to the extent of 25%) was imposed upon the plaintiff – respondent. It was held that the plaintiff – respondent shall be entitled to “the pension to the tune of 100% .” The learned Trial Court, however, did not invalidate that part of the impugned order vide which the plaintiff – respondent had been ordered to be prematurely retired from service w.e.f. 01.05.1990. The learned First Appellate Court, while relying upon U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Mohd. Ismail and others, 1991 (2) Recent Services Judgments, page 149, held that the impugned order qua retirement as well was invalid. The learned First Appellate Court drew sustenance from the following observations made by the Apex Court: - “Alternate appointment – Drivers of Transport Found Medically unfit services Terminated – whether it is obligatory on the part of Transport Corporation to offer alternate jobs R.S.A. No.498 of 1998 -2- Held – Yes.” The learned State counsel is not in a position to invite the attention of this Court to any judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court taking a view contrary to the view obtained in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another's case (supra). It is common ground that the plaintiff – respondent had joined service on 20.03.1966 and was ordered to be retired w.e.f. 28.02.1992. If that order had not come about, he would have been in employment for a period of 2 more years. The finding recorded by the learned First Appellate Court is well reasoned and cemented by the Apex Court judgment in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Mohd. Ismail and others, 1991 (2) Recent Services Judgments, page 149. The learned counsel for the plaintiff – respondent states that the plaintiff – respondent neither asked for nor is presently requiring the grant of arrears of pay for the period for which he was not in employment. The learned State counsel has not been able to invite the attention of this Court to any substantial question of law which arises for consideration by this Court. In the light of the aforementioned discussion, the appeal filed by the State shall stand negatived. The plaintiff – respondent shall be entitled to 100% pension admissible to him as if he had rendered 28 years' service in the department of the appellant. Disposed of accordingly. July 07, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE