AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabina, J.—Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the order dated 4.5.2006 whereby he was retired on attaining the age of superannuation.
The case of the Plaintiff in brief was that the Plaintiff had joined as Lower Division Clerk/ Meter Reader w.e.f. 25.5.1972. Plaintiff was a handicapped person to the extent of 70% by birth. Defendants had superannuated the Plaintiff on completion of 58 years of age w.e.f. 30.4.2006 whereas the age of retirement, in respect of physically handicapped employees, had been raised from 58 years to 60 years. The government letter No. 34/01/2006-4951 dated 31.1.2006 had been adopted by Defendant No. 1 The Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred as DHBVNL) on 25.4.2006. The Plaintiff had further been retired in violation of the decision taken by the Board of Directors. Hence, the suit for declaration was filed by the Plaintiff.
Defendants, in their written statement, admitted the fact that the Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendants and had retired on 30.4.2006. It was averred that all the requisite benefits had already been given to the Plaintiff on his retirement. The Plaintiff had already submitted his papers qua retiral benefits. The representation submitted by the Plaintiff qua extension in service upto the age of 60 years had been considered but the Plaintiff was not legally entitled to get the said benefits as he was retired on 30.4.2006. Plaintiff had already been given three years extension in service on 5.2.2003. Plaintiff had superannuated on 30.4.2006 on attaining the age of 58 years. The letter by the State qua raising of the age of the date of superannuation of handicapped employees from 58 years to 60 years had been adopted by the Defendants on 25.4.2006 but the Plaintiff was retired on 30.4.2006.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration that the order dated 4.5.2006 vide which the service of Plaintiff were superannuated with effect from 30.4.2006 is illegal, unjustified and against the instruction issued by Government of Haryana? OPP
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to be retained in service with effect from Ist May 2006 till attaining the age of 60 years or is in alternative for the wages for the period from 1.5.2006 till aged of 60 years alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accrual till actual payment? OPP
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a relief of mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to reinstate the service of the Plaintiff with effect from 1.5.2006 and to release the arrears of pay from 1.5.2006 till reinstatement? OPP
Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD
Whether the Plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
Relief.
Vide judgment and decree dated 7.2.2009, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) partly decreed the suit of the Plaintiff and held that he was entitled to receive the allowances from 1.5.2006 till the attaining of age of 60 years. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, Defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the Defendants.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the Appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal.
Admittedly, the Plaintiff had joined with the Defendants as Lower Division Clerk/Meter Reader w.e.f. 25.5.1972. Plaintiff has been retired on 30.4.2006 on attaining the age of 58 years. Admittedly, the age of retirement qua handicapped employees was raised by the State of Haryana vide letter dated 31.1.2006. The said decision of the government was adopted by DHBVNL on 25.4.2006. The Plaintiff has been retired on 30.4.2006 i.e. after the decision, taken by the State, was adopted by Defendant DHBVNL. In these circumstances, the Plaintiff could not be denied the benefit of the decision taken by the government, which has been adopted by the Defendant DHBVNL. Merely because the Plaintiff had submitted the requisite papers qua retiral benefits would not disentitle him to claim the benefits of increase in age of superannuation. At the time when the Plaintiff had submitted his requisite papers qua pensionary benefits, the Defendant DHBVNL had not adopted the decision, taken by the state qua raise in age of superannuation qua handicapped employees.
No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.
Dismissed.