JUDGMENT

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-Special leave granted. We have heard the counsel on both sides on the merits of the appeal.

2. The appellant was appointed as a Constable in the Police Department of the erstwhile State of PEPSU (Patiala and East Punjab States Union) which merged later on 1.11.1956 with the new State of Punjab. The Raj Pramukh of the State of PEPSU framed, under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the PEPSU Services Regulations, volume 1 para 2.28 thereof defines inferior servant as inferior Government servant as included in the list in Appendix 1. The said Appendix includes, among others, Police Constables. Notification dated 20.7.1954 (F.D. 1(2) Reg. 54) issued under the proviso to Article 309 by the Raj pramukh says that the following Note shall be added under Article 9.1 of PEPSU Services Regulations Volume 1 and the existing Note shall be numbered as Note (1):

"Note 2: The age for retirement of Class IV Government servants will be 60 years".

As per documents Ex. P3 (at points Ex. P3/1 and Ex. P3/2) filed in the trial court, the Police Constables and Sipahis were included in the list of inferior class IV employees. While so, the appellant who was born on 1.12.1930 and who was appointed on 4.11.1949 as Constable in PEPSU and who after 1.11.1956 was allotted to the State of Punjab was sought to be retired at the age of 58 years which was the age of retirement applicable to Constables in the State of Punjab. The appellant contended that having been allotted from the State of Pepsu to the State of Punjab on 1.11.1956, his service conditions in the former State of PEPSU including his age of superannuation were protected under sub-clause (7) of the States Re-Organisation Act. 1956 and he should be allowed to continue till he completed 60 years even though, at the time of retirement, he was employed by the State of Punjab. This contention was not accepted and the Superintendent of Police, Punjab passed orders on 29.11.1988 regarding his superannuation on completion of 58 years w.e.f. 30.11.1988 (AN), as per the Punjab Rules.

3. The appellant challenged the validity of the said order in Civil Suit No. 596 filed on 16.11.1991. The trial court decreed the suit on 20.9.1994 holding that in view of the proviso to Section 115(7) of the States Re-organisation Act, the appellant was entitled to continue in service upto 60 years as per PEPSU Regulations. The appeal by the State of Punjab was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala (Punjab) on 16.10.1995. However, the Second Appeal, RSA 611/1996 preferred by the State was allowed by the High Court on 25.7.1996 following the Division Bench judgment in Tripat Singh v. State of Punjab etc.1. In that case, it was held by the Division Bench that the age of superannuation applicable to the employees is the one applicable to them at the time of retirement in the State of Punjab. That was a case in which the employees were working in a higher post, a Class-III post on promotion from Class-IV. The Division Bench held that it was the age of retirement applicable to the post which a person was holding at the time of retirement that was relevant. Following the said judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed the Second Appeal holding that notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff was not promoted to class III after allotment to Punjab, still the principle stated in the Division Bench judgment applied and that inasmuch as in Punjab, a Constable was to retire at 58 years, the appellant could not claim any higher right based upon the regulations obtaining in the State of PEPSU. No reference was made by the learned Single Judge to the proviso to Section 115(7) of the States Re-Organisation Act, 1956 while taking this view, even though the trial court and the first appellate court had made reference to the said provision. Some other Judgments of learned Single Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court decided with reference to Section 115(7) were not fol