Judgment

S. C. AGRAWAL, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Special leave granted.

2. The appellant joined service as Director of Physical Education in Dronocharya Sanatan Dharam College, Gurgaon, a Government aided college (hereinafter referred to as the college). The college was taken over by the State of Haryana with effect from January 14, 1980. After the take over of the college, the appellant was absorbed in the service of Government of Haryana. He retired on attaining the age of 58 years on February 1, 1990. On retirement, he has been paid a sum of Rs. l7,500/- by way of death-cum-retirement gratuity for the period from January 14, l980 to January 31, 1990 and he is being paid pension at the rate of Rs. 517/- per month calculated on the basis of the service for the period from January 14, 1980 to January 31, 1990. The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana wherein he claimed that he was entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years and further that he should have been allowed gratuity and pension on the basis of the entire period of service from August, 1959. The said writ petition of the appellant was, however, dismissed by the High Court by order dated May 30, 1990. The appellant has filed this appeal against the said order of the High Court.

3. The terms and conditions on which the college was taken over by the Government of Haryana are contained in Letter No. 23. 13-79-Edu.I(2) dated December 14, 1979 from the Secretary to Government, Haryana, Education Department. to the Director of Public Instructions, Haryana, Chandigarh.

Para 10 of the said conditions is in the following terms : -

"10: In regard to such member of the staff as are regularly absorbed after completion of the formalities as indicated in sub-para 2(2) above, the conditions for Pension and Provident Fund shall be the same as were made applicable to the teachers of privately managed schools taken over by the Government."

4. Since the appellant became an employee of the State Government on his absorption in the service of the Government of Haryana, he was governed by the service rules applicable to the employees of Government of Haryana. Under the said rules, the age of retirement is 58 years. The appellant cannot, therefore, claim that he could not be retired on his attaining the age of 58 years and should have been allowed to continue up to the age of 60 years, on the ground that the age of retirement for the staff of the college before it was taken over by the Government was 60 years. Similarly in the matter of pension we find that the staff of the college before it was taken over were not entitled to pension but were having provident fund by way of retirement benefit. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to claim provident fund benefit for the period of service rendered by him prior to the taking over of the college by the State, and for the period subsequent to said take over, he is entitled to pension in accordance with the service rules of the State. It is not disputed that the petitioner has received the provident fund benefit in respect of the period of service rendered by him prior to the take over of the college by the State and in respect to the service subsequent to such take over he is receiving pension in accordance with the service rules.

5. The only grievance of the appellant that has been stressed by Shri R. K. Jain during the course of his submission, is with regard to the amount of gratuity that has been paid to the appellant. As mentioned earlier, the appellant has been paid gratuity in respect of the period January 14, 1980 till January 31, 1990, the period after the take over of the college by the State. Shri Jain has submitted that the appellant should have been paid gratuity by taking into account the entire period of his service including the service when the college was under private management. In this context, Shri Jain has pointed out that th