Judgment

KULDIP SINGH, J.:- Special leave granted.

2. R. R. Bhanot, the appellant herein, attained the age of superannuation on December 31, 1970. Till-date his post-retiral benefits including pension have not been settled. He has been running from pillar to post and has been shuttling between the two States of Himachal Pradesh and Punjab for over two decades. Total apathy on the part of the officers concerned, has brought untold misery and hardship to the appellant. He filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking appropriate directions to the authorities concerned for the release of pension, gratuity etc. due to him under the rules. It is unfortunate that the High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine. This appeal by way of special leave is against the order of the High Court.

3. The appellant was born on January 1, 1913. He entered the service of the erstwhile State of Punjab as Sectional Officer (Overseer) on September 30, 1937. He was promoted to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer on December 10, 1959.

4. On the reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab, the appellant was provisionally allocated to the State of Himachal Pradesh with effect from November 1, 1966. The appellant joined the State of Himachal Pradesh but at the same time represented before the Union of India against his allocation to the said State.

5. The Himachal Pradesh Government prematurely retired the appellant from service by notification dated March 20, 1969 with effect from the afternoon of May 14, 1968. The appellant, at that time, was on deputation with the Development Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla and was posted as Assistant Engineer, Development, Una. The appellant challenged the said order by way of writ petition before the High Court of Delhi, Himachal Bench, Shimla. A learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated March 20, 1969 prematurely retiring the appellant from service. The operative part of the High Court judgment dated September 29, 1969 is as under :-

"After the matter was argued at great length, Shri Malhotra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, was able to bring to my notice an order passed, pending this writ petition, by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi on 19-5-1969 stating that with effect from 1-11-1966 the petitioner, among others, was deemed to have been allotted to the State of Punjab. This order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 82 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. By reason of the said provision it was the Central Government which could finally determine the State to which the concerned officers were allotted. In view of this order, which has been passed by the Central Government, Shri Chhabil Dass, learned Counsel for the State of Himachal Pradesh, fairly concedes that the order retiring the petitioner from service on completion of 55 years did not survive. It is hence quashed. In the circumstances the parties will bear their own costs."

6. It is thus obvious that the representation of the appellant against his provisionally allocation to the State of Himachal Pradesh was accepted and as a consequence by the order dated May 19, 1969 issued by the Government of India in exercise of the powers under sub-section (2) of Section 82 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, the appellant was finally allocated to the State of Punjab with effect from November 1, 1966.

7. After the High Court set aside the premature retirement of the appellant, he represented before the Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, Himachal Pradesh and also the State Government for payment of the arrears of his salary and also for further posting as a consequence of the High Court judgment. It seems that the authorities in the State of Himachal Pradesh did not take any action on the ground that the appellant having been finally allocated to the State of Punjab,