Judgment :

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 1.12.2009 in Regular Second Appeal No.2299 of 2009, passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.9.2008, passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar in Civil Appeal No.122 of 14.6.2006 as well as the judgment and decree dated 23.5.2006, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Amritsar in Civil Suit No.275 of 2004, wherein and whereunder the courts have dismissed the suit of the appellant for grant of retiral benefits for not being Government servant.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under:

A. That the appellant had worked in the Army as Truck driver from 26.10.1962 to 10.1.1968. He was subsequently employed as a truck driver in the Fish Farmers Development Agency from 16.7.1980 to 20.5.1998. After being declared surplus, he was absorbed in the Animal Husbandry, Fisheries and Dairy Development, Punjab on 1.6.1998 and stood superannuated on 31.3.2002.

B. The appellant instituted Civil Suit No.275 of 2004 claiming retrial benefits in view of letter dated 20.4.1998 issued by the Govt. of Punjab which provided for regularisation of ad hoc employees by absorbing them against the departmental posts. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.5.2006.

C. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred Civil Appeal No.122 of 2006. It was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.9.2008.

D. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the Regular Second Appeal which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree.

Hence, this appeal.

3. Shri D.K. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that as the appellant had been absorbed in the Fish Farmers Development Agency, he is entitled to take the benefit of entire service rendered in various places. Thus, the courts below committed an error in refusing the relief of pension and other retrial benefits. The appellant had been given a hostile discrimination while a similarly situated person, namely, Charanjit Lal got a decree from the Civil Court, Gurdaspur on 16.9.1996 in Suit No.4 of 1992. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, Shri Jagjit Singh Chhabra, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the appeal contending that the Fish Farmers Development Agency is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1860). If a civil court had granted the relief by mistake or the plaintiff therein succeeded in getting a collusive decree, which is contrary to law, its benefit cannot be extended to other similarly situated persons for the reason that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate an illegality. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Before we proceed further, it may be pertinent to mention here that appellant after retirement had approached the High Court by filing the Writ Petition No.1505 of 2004 (Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab & Ors.) seeking relief of proficiency set up, against the State wherein the High Court refused the relief by recording a finding that the Fish Farmers Development Agency, Amritsar was neither a Government agency nor a department but rather was a society registered under the Act 1860.

7. The Trial Court considered the issue of entitlement of the appellant for the aforesaid relief and held as under:

“Division Bench of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the State of Punjab & Anr. v. Shri D.N. Rampal, Deputy Advocate General, 1985 (1) SLR 14, where Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that Rule 3.12 provides three qualifications for pension. It says that the service of a Government employee does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to three conditions l

(i) the service must be under Government, (ii) the employment must be