IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 422 of 1994 Date of decision: 27.2.2009 Punjab State Electricity Board & another … Appellants Versus Puran Singh … Respondent Present: Mr. B.S. Wasu, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. M.K.Singla, Advocate. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: Appellants before this Court are the defendants, who have concurrently lost before the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that office order No. 474 dated 23.12.1987, Exhibit P-1, vide he was retired on attaining the age of 58 years is illegal and void and that he is entitled to continue in service upto the age fo 60 years with all rights and benefits attached to the post of driver, has been decreed. Plaintiff in his suit claimed that he joined the service of Pepsu as Peon and his service conditions were governed by the Pepsu Service Regulations where the age of superannuation was 60 years for all Class IV employees. The post of driver was also classified under Class IV service by the Pepsu Government. Upon merger of the Pepsu into the State of Punjab with effect from 1.11.1956, the services of the plaintiff were placed at the disposal of the State of Punjab and then at the disposal of Punjab State Electricity Board on its formation. Thereafter, he continued to be governed by the said Pepsu Civil Service Rules according to which he being a Class IV employee, was to be retired at the age of 60 but he was retired at the age of 58 years which is illegal. He further claimed that he is entitled to the grant of selection grade of Rs.510-800/- which also has been denied to him illegal and arbitrarily. Upon notice of the suit, defendants in their written statement took up the stand that after his appointment as Peon on 1.8.1953 in Pepsu Government, the plaintiff became the employee of the Punjab State and thereafter the employee of the Punjab State Electricity RSA No. 422 of 1994 -2- Board and as such, he was to be governed by the Punjab Civil Services Rules and Regulations framed by the Punjab State Electricity Board. It has been denied that the retirement age of driver in PEPSU State is 60 years. It was stated that the plaintiff was promoted as driver by the Board on 11.7.1964 and therefore,on his promotion he came under the category of Class-III employee for which the retirement age is 58 years and not 60 years. Pepsu Service Regulations have not been placed on record by the plaintiff. Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, did not agree with the pleas taken by the defendants and accordingly, decreed the suit of the plaintiff in the manner indicated above. Aggrieved therefrom, the defendants preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the first appellate Court. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the defendants. The following question of law was framed:- 1) Whether the conditions of service/benefits which were assured to the employee at the time of appointment to a particular post shall hold good to the post to which he was promoted subsequently ?. I have heard counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that respondent-plaintiff was holding the post of Peon in the capacity of Class IV employee in the former State of Pepsu. After the merger of Pepsu and Punjab, reorganised State of Punjab was formed and the proviso to sub-section 7 of Section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act,1956, provides that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day, could not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government. In the instant case, respondent Puran Singh admittedly at the time of joining service of the Board was Class IV employee. Undisputedly, he was promoted to the post of driver which is a class III post. He accepted the said promotion without any objection and continued to work on the said post till his retirement. He so long had continued to hold the post of Peon, he could claim benefit of such assurance but not after he had been promoted as driver which he had accepted without any objection and as such, with this promotion, where he enjoyed higher status and grade, his RSA No. 422 of 1994 -3- conditions of service were to be regulated by the rules of PSEB governing conditions of service of Class III employees which lays down the age of retirement to be 58 years. This issue was under consideration in a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Pirthi Chand Bharaj and another v. The State of Punjab and others, 1976 Services Law Weekly Reporter 506, wherein it has been held that the assurance that their conditions of service would not be altered to their disadvantage was in regard to those posts which they were then holding in a substantive capacity. The assurance did not attach itself to the posts to which they were promoted subsequently. Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has relied Niranjan Singh v. Secretary to Government, Punjab Transport Department, Chandigarh and others, 1990(1) RSJ 293. However, this judgment does not help the respondent as in that case, petitioner therein had joined service as a Mochi- a Class IV employee in the erstwhile State of Nabha, later merged in the former State of PEPSU and the plea of the Department that in the meantime, since the said post had been redesignated as Upholster repairer of seats, carpets etc., therefore, it ceased to be categorized as Class IV post, was repelled holding that he does not lose his right to continue in service upto the age of 60 years merely by virtue of redesignation of the post as no order of promotion of the respondent from Class IV to Class III post has been produced by the Department on the record of this case; whereas in the present case, admittedly as discussed above, he has been promoted from Class IV(Peon) to Class III(driver). The Courts below,thus, have misconstrued the decision rendered in Niranjan Singh’s case (supra) while decreeing the suit. Plaintiff has been rightly retired from service at the age of 58 years. In view of the discussion above, the appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees of the Courts are hereby set aside. As a result thereof, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. No costs. February 27, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE