CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.2-C OF 2010 & REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1490 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 26, 2010 Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and another .....Appellants VERSUS Tarlochan Singh Bhatia ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. J. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for Ms. P.S.Sekhon, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the respondent-cross-objector. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. An Assistant Executive Engineer serving in the Punjab State Electricity Board was prematurely retired on 9.2.1994. He had filed a suit to challenge the order on the ground that it was illegal and void. Besides, he had also prayed for some other reliefs in regard to his pay fixation, which was not done upon implementation of 3rd Punjab Pay Commission Report, which according to him, has resulted in loss to him. Further prayer was for counting the service CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.2-C OF 2010 & REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1490 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: rendered in Indian Railways for the purpose of pension and gratuity benefits. The Board resisted the suit and justified the order prematurely retiring the respondent-plaintiff, namely, Tarlochan Singh Bhatia. It was pleaded that as per the Rules, work and conduct and mental and physical fitness of the respondent-plaintiff was considered for his continuance beyond the age of 55 years till he completed 58 years of age. The competent authority had granted him extension for one year beyond 55 years of age and his work and conduct was kept under observation. Again the case for extension beyond 56 years of age was considered but he was retired on 2.9.1994 by giving a cheque dated 1.9.1994 for a sum of Rs.22,545/- in lieu of notice period. Thus, the case set up is that the work and conduct of the respondent-plaintiff was kept under observation for one year. Plea is that the respondent-plaintiff did not stay at the head quarters despite instructions and also did not make sincere efforts to improve the condition and working of sub-station. He was, thus, not retained beyond the age of 56 years. His right to get his pay fixed w.e.f. 1.1.1986 is also disputed and it is stated that he was rightly allowed the scale of Rs.3500-5600/-. He was accordingly held not entitled to any other benefit etc. The suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was partly decreed and the order dated 2.9.1994 was held illegal and against the rules, which was set-aside. Directions were issued that the respondent-plaintiff would be deemed to have retired on completion CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.2-C OF 2010 & REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1490 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: of 58 years of age. Remaining reliefs, however, were declined. Against this order, the Board as well as the respondent- plaintiff filed appeals. The first appellate Court has also upheld the view of the Trial Court. The Board has accordingly filed this Regular Second Appeal whereas the respondent-plaintiff has filed cross- objections. The learned counsel appearing for the Board apparently went at tangent to submit that the respondent-plaintiff did not have 70% good reports and, thus, could be prematurely retired. The counsel made an attempt to show the annual confidential reports of the respondent-plaintiff to substantiate his submission. His attention was drawn to the finding recorded in Para 10 of the impugned judgment and so also of the Trial Court where it is observed that more than 70% of the annual confidential reports of the respondent- plaintiff were good and others were average. It is also noticed that no remarks had been passed by the Assessing Authority against the integrity of the employee. The counsel of the Board is apprised that this was not even the stand which the Board had taken before the Courts below. The pointed attention of the counsel was drawn to the fact that the competent authority had considered the case of the respondent-plaintiff and had decided to grant him extension for a service beyond 55 years for a period of one year. The stand of the Board, as already noticed above, is that the authorities had decided to keep the work and conduct of the respondent-plaintiff under observation for the period of one year of extended service and accordingly had prematurely retired him on 2.9.1994 on account of CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.2-C OF 2010 & REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1490 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: the reasons, which may amount to a misconduct. Thus, it was nowhere pleaded that the respondent-plaintiff did not have 70% of the good reports for which he was prematurely retired. The counsel, thus, was pointedly asked in case he could point out to any instructions applicable where the authorities could competently grant extension of service to the respondent-plaintiff for a year to keep his conduct under watch and thereafter to prematurely retire him as has been done. The counsel could neither point out any such instructions nor could he even refer to any provision in support of this stand. Both the Courts have referred to number of judgments on the point of premature retirement of an employee and have held the order to be illegal. The counsel for the appellants could not point out to any substantial question of law, which would arise in this case. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The counsel appearing for the respondent- plaintiff could not say anything to justify the cross-objections, which are, thus, dismissed. April 26, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE