Regular Second Appeal No. 510 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 510 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : May 05, 2010 Sarabjit Singh Padda ....Appellant versus Amritsar Improvement Trust ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No. 1438.C of 2010 Deficiency in court fee is said to have been made good. The application is, therefore, allowed as prayed for. CM No. 1440.C of 2010 For reasons mentioned in the application delay of 15 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM No. 1439.C of 2010 For reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit delay of 105 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 510 of 2010 Plaintiff Sarabjit Singh Padda has filed the instant second appeal having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Regular Second Appeal No. 510 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Defendant Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar floated a scheme wherein 15% plots were reserved for pensioners and those serving employees whose superannuation fell in the next three years and who had no house of their own or in the name of any member of their family. The plaintiff who was due to retire on 31.12.2000, made application dated 6.1.1998 for allotment of plot under the aforesaid reserved category. Thereafter vide notification dated 13.5.1998, Government of India raised the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 years to 60 years. The plaintiff being employee of the Government of India therefore superannuated on 31.12.2002. A draw of lots was held on 4.12.1998 wherein plot no. B-193 in the scheme was allotted to the plaintiff. However, when subsequently it was found that the plaintiff was not eligible for the plot under the aforesaid reserved category as his superannuation was not within the next three years, the defendant vide communication dated 2.8.2000 cancelled the allotment of the aforesaid plot to the plaintiff. The said cancellation was also made on second ground that the plaintiff was employee of the Central Government whereas the plots were reserved for pensioners and employees of Punjab Government only. The plaintiff by filing the suit challenged the cancellation of the plot alleging that the reservation was for employees of Central Government as well because the scheme did not specify that the plots were reserved for pensioners and employees of Punjab Government only. The plaintiff also alleged that when he applied for allotment of the plot, his superannaution was to take place within less than three years and therefore, he was eligible for the allotment of the plot under the reserved category. The defendant reiterated its stand that the plaintiff was not Regular Second Appeal No. 510 of 2010 (O&M) -3- eligible being Central Government employee as the plots were reserved for pensioners and employees of the Punjab Government only. The defendant also asserted that the plaintiff became ineligible before the draw of lots held on 4.12.1998 as his superannuation age was increased and therefore, the plaintiff was left with more than three years of service. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 24.4.2007 dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding the plaintiff to be ineligible for the plot as he was left with more than three years service at the time of draw of lots. Although being Central Government employee he was held to be not ineligible for the plot on that ground. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 15.10.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the plaintiff was eligible when he made application for allotment of the plot because he was left with less than three years service. The contention although apparently attractive cannot be accepted. Draw of lots was held on 4.12.1998. Prior to it, superannuation age of the plaintiff was increased from 58 years to 60 years vide notification dated 13.5.1998 and therefore, the plaintiff was to retire on 31.12.2002 and was thus left with more than three years of service. Consequently, the plaintiff was not eligible for allotment of plot under the aforesaid reserved category. It may be added that the purpose of reserving the plots for the aforesaid category was to provide plots for raising houses to the retiring employees so that they can live peacefully after retirement. With this Regular Second Appeal No. 510 of 2010 (O&M) -4- purpose in view, reservation was made for pensioners and those employees who were to retire within next three years. However, since the appellant was to retire after more than three years, the scheme was not meant for him. If such persons were included in the scheme, really deserving persons for whom the reservation was made would have been deprived of the benefit of reservation made in the scheme. In view of the aforesaid, I find that the courts below have examined the case in correct and proper prospective and the judgments of the courts below do not suffer from any illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference in second appeal at the hands of this Court. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is, thus, found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) May 05, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'