15.01.2025 Date Behari Lal v. State of Punjab an and others
Case Details
CWP-11478-1999 1999 (O&M) 1 UNJAB & HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN T ARH AT CHANDIGARH 103 CWP-11478-1999 (O&M) CWP Date of decision: 15.01.2025 Date Behari Lal … Petitioner vs. State of Punjab an and others … Respondents
Legal Reasoning
le to ll these benefits were admissible to were appointed before or after after gned order dated 24.04.1990 which hich the on 04.10.1992, the case of the e ground of repeal of Rules and in d in 82 Rules did not provide any such such een However, once the Rules have been been restored, the petitioner would ould entitled for the said benefit, as per per rom f counting his Military service from The submission of the State that the t the ed against a permanent post and and is of o the benefits under the Rules is of 981 ppointment letter dated 29.09.1981 of service of the petitioner w.e.f. .e.f. nce f the respondents themselves. Once ugh ed, having been appointed through t would not be open for the State to te to post t was not against a permanent post said entitled for the benefits. The said the Ex-Servicemen who had, at that that the ary services, keeping in view the e wake of the Chinese aggression. ent of this Court in Sumer Singh's hoc period of service rendered by d by able lowed by regular service was liable urpose of fixing the pension after after ilitary service rendered during the the e ng in view the observations of the ered in Kesar Chand, resident of of unjab & others AIR 1988 (P&H) H) SJ s. State of Haryana 2011(2) RSJ ng the benefit to the petitioner, held held n appointed on ad hoc basis and and itary re also entitled to reap the military ons reads as under: t by the learned Counsel appearing ule 4(i) of the Punjab Government ncessions) Rules, 1965 nor the Chief Secretary to the Government ngs No.12/14/84-2GS-II speaks of vice” so as to get the benefits under Government National Emergency . A person who had put in military n under Rule 2 and the clarification ry employment in “service or post” ired to reap the military benefits. A ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.15 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11478-1999 1999 (O&M) 5 inted on Adhoc basis is also under person who has been appointed o pe ment. Even otherwise there is no th the service of the Government. service of the petitioner has been di dispute to the fact that the servic s best known neither the petitioner regularised. For the reasons best re come out with the actual date on no nor the respondents would come titioner was regularized. When Rule which the service of the petitioner w overnment National Emergency the Punjab Governm 4(i) of 4( 5, does not contemplate either (C (Concessions) Rules 1965, do anent service, the petitioner, who re regularised service or permanent ment service long prior to the has been in the government ha e definition military service cannot am amendment introduced to the defi accrued to him. be be deprived of the benefits accrue the impugned order passed by the 16. In view of the above, the im 16 the petitioner from the military respondents dis-entitling the p re ole ground that he entered into se service benefits on the sole g n Adhoc basis, does not stand legal government service only on Adho go impugned order is liable to be scrutiny. Therefore, the impug sc e impugned order passed by the qu quashed. Accordingly, the impu d and a direction is issued to the respondents stands quashed and re he military benefits alongwith the m respondents re he petitioner, as per Rule 4(i) (ii) co consequential benefits to the pet Government National Emergency and (iii) of the Punjab Gover an (Concessions) Rules, 1965.” (C 10 Resultantly, keeping in 10. m mind, it is held that the petitio Military service rendered from 1 M th the purpose of pension. Accordin an and 04.11.1992 are quashed and respondent-State to grant the ben re pe petitioner for the purpose of calcu co consequential benefits be paid to t from the date of receipt of a certi fr co complying with the conditions la Rule 8-A(ii) of the 1982 Rules, as R 11. Writ petition is, accordingly, 11. terms.” term ing in view the said observation in n in petitioner is entitled to count the the , for from 19.01.1963 to 09.01.1968, for ccordingly, orders dated 24.04.1990 990 ed and a direction is issued to the the the he benefit of the said period to the f calculating his pension. Necessary sary aid to the petitioner within 2 months nths his a certified copy of this order on his 2 of ions laid down in Clauses 1 & 2 of les, as amended. said ly, allowed in the above-said to grant 3. Relevant portion of judgment in LPA Relev LPA-1474-2013 reads thus:- “CM No. 3756 of 2013 After hearing counsel f allowed. Delay of 19 days in condoned. LPA No. 1474 of 2013 n is nsel for the parties, application is ands ays in re-filing this appeal stands Vide the impugned jud appellant was held entitled to ed judgment dated 10.5.2013, the the by tled to count services rendered by ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.15 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11478-1999 1999 (O&M) 6 him during National Emer 9.1.1968, for the purpose of pe At the time of arguments fairly states that grievance rem of benefit of increments as p rendered during first emergen 9.1.1968. Emergency from 19.1.1963 of pension. uments Mr. Jagpal Singh, Advocate, cate, rant ce remains only with regard to grant s as per the Rules, for the service vice 3 to ergency i.e. between 19.1.1963 to to to To the relief claimed Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab cann entitlement clearly flows from Government National Emergen In view of above, this a directed that in addition to benefit of increments, for the also given to the appellant.” imed possibly Mr. Gaurav Garg arg b cannot raise any objection as this this njab from the rules known as the Punjab ergency (Concession) Rules, 1965. 965. this appeal is disposed of and it is it is n to the pensionary benefits, the the , be or the period referred to above, be 4. In wake of the above, the present peti In wa
Arguments
CORAM: HON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN C ***** ***** Mr. RK Arora, Advocate for the petit Present : Mr. e petitioner. AN CHAUDHARY Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punja Mr. S , Punjab. ***** ***** AUDHARY, J. (ORAL) AMAN CHAUDH 1. Prayer made in the present petition Praye the etition for direction to declare the action of respond spondent authorities not allowing th vice ing the benefit of military service rendered in first em first emergency as he joined the Indian Indian Army on 20.12.1963. 2. Learned counsel submits that the pe Learn for the petitioner is claiming only for increment and pen nd pension as he had given up the cla g an the claim qua seniority by filing an affidavit dated 10 ted 10.09.1999 vide CM-21788-CWP e of CWP-1999. He states that case of the petitioner is sq r is squarely covered by the judgment vs. gment passed in Balwant Singh vs. State of Punjab a njab and others, CWP-9062-1994, d inst 994, decided on 10.05.2013, against which LPA-1474 1474-2013 was also dismissed on 18 on on 18.03.2014 so also the SLP on 18.05.2015, which which learned State counsel despite een espite his best efforts, has not been able to controvert trovert the factual position and draw ts in draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementione ntioned judgment or cite any contrar the ontrary law, relevant extract of the ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.15 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11478-1999 1999 (O&M) 2 judgment in Balw Balwant Singh (supra) reads thus:- f 1965 Rules, the petitioner was was “6. 6. Admittedly, in view of 196 for counting of Military service for entitled for the benefit of coun ent nsion. The said benefit was denied nied inc increments, seniority and pension. d that before his services could be d be to to him solely on the ground that and 5, the 1965 Rules were repealed and regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1985, the 1 reg into force w.e.f. 12.02.1982. The e the the 1982 Rules had come into fo proached this Court and during the the pet petitioner had, thereafter, approach 982 tition, the amendment in the 1982 pendency of the present petition, pen been made. Under the said Rules, ules, Ru Rules w.e.f. 11.02.1982 had been servation of seats to the tune of 15% 15% the there were only benefit of reservati the amendment dated 08.06.2004, the initially. However, vide amend init as to m 26.10.1962 to 09.01.1968 was to period of Military service from 26. per The s of increments and pension. The be be counted for the purposes of in nder: relevant Rule 8-A reads as under: rele sion – Period of military service 8-A, Increments and pension “8 National Emergency from 26th ren rendered during the First Natio October, 1962 to 9th January, 196 y, 1968 shall count for increments Oc and and pension as under :- (i) (i) Increments - The period spe service (restricted to emergency pe ser to 9th January, 1968) after a to pre prescribed for appointment to any s appointed, shall count for incremen app age age is prescribed the minimum a Ru Rules 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11 of the Volume II. This concession shall Vo on first appointment. on d spend by a person on military ncy period from 26th October, 1962 fter attaining the minimum age o any service or post, to which he is crements. Where no such minimum um age shall be as laid down in f the Punjab Civil Services Rules shall however, be admissible only (ii) Pension - The period of militar (ii) shall count toward pension only in sha per permanent services of posts, conditions:- con ause military service mentioned in clause ts to only in the case of appointments to ing following to osts, subject the (1) The person concerned should (1) und under military rules in respect of th (2) Any bonus or gratuity paid in (2) the defence authorities shall have the Go Government. (3) The period, if any, between (3) military service and the date of a mil pos post under the Government shall such period does not exceed one suc one year but not exceeding three y one cou count for pension in exceptional c Government. Go sion should not have earned a pension t of the military service in question. id in respect of military service by l have to be refunded to the State rom tween the date of discharge from e or e of appointment to any service or all count for pension, provided ided ding d one year. Any period exceeding d to three years may also be allowed to the ional cases under the orders of the ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.15 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11478-1999 1999 (O&M) 3 nted ble to all those who were appointed This benefit shall be applicable to Th re or after 11th February, 1982.” in G in Government services before or a as added w.e.f. 10.04.2012 wherein rein 7. Thereafter, Rule 8-B was add 7. ents e was restricted to the appointments the benefit of Military service was the s. Rule 8-B reads as under: aga against the reserved vacancies. Ru vice sion – Period of military service 8-B. Increments and pension “8 d National Emergency from 3rd rendered during the Second Nat ren to 25th Marc March, 1977, shall count for De December, 1971 der :- increments and pension as under : inc ents for the aforesaid service shall (a) Increments - The increments f (a) y, who joined and rendered service be be paid to those persons only, who period. This benefit will, however, during the aforementioned period. dur making first appointment on regular be given only at the time of making be e under the Government. However, bas basis on a civil post or service unde en into account when the pay of a these increments will be taken int the ed on account of his promotion, person is subsequently fixed on per r revision of pay scale or otherwise; selection, new recruitment or revisi sel (b) Pension - The period of milita (b) shall count towards pension only i sha per permanent post under the Governm conditions namely:- con (i) The person concerned should (i) und under military rules in respect of th (ii) Any bonus or gratuity paid in (ii) the defence authorities shall have the Go Government, and; (iii) The period, if any, between (iii military service and the date of ap mil pos post under the Government shall suc such period does not exceed one one year but not exceeding three y one cou ount for pension in exceptional c Go Government. “These benefits shall be available “Th app appointed in Government Service were in Service as on 1st Decem we thereafter: the Pro Provided that these benefits shall b on notional basis with effect from on on account of pay shall not be paid on 8. 8. A perusal of Rule 8-A would, benefit of Military service, whic ben under the 1965 Rules and withdraw und 198 1982 Rules, was restored for the pension in the case of appointment pen ove, military service, referred to above, to a only in case of an appointment to a ing overnment, subject to the following sion should not have earned a pension t of the military service in question; aid in respect of military service by e by tate l have to be refunded to the State tween the date of discharge from e of appointment to any service or shall count for pension, provided d one year. Any period exceeding three years may also be allowed to ional cases under the orders of the ere ailable to all the persons who were rvice against reserved vacancies and and d December, 2011 or are appointed shall be admissible for pay fixation tion from 1st January, 2012 and arrears ears e paid.” ould, thus, go on to show that the t the nted which had been initially granted ded ithdrawn in view of the un-amended for the purpose of increments and and The ntment to the permanent posts. The ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.15 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11478-1999 1999 (O&M) 4 Rule further provided that all thes Ru all all those employees who were 11. 11.02.1982. Vide the impugned o was subsequently up held on 0 wa pet petitioner was rejected on the grou vie view of the fact that the 1982 Ru benefit of Military service. Howev ben am amended and benefits have been r nec necessarily be deemed to be entitl the Rules, for the purposes of coun the 19. 19.01.1963 to 09.01.1968. The su pet petitioner was not appointed ag therefore, was not entitled to the b the no avail as admittedly, the appoin no res resulted into regularization of ser 01.04.1985, as per the case of the r 01. the petitioner was regularized, ha the the the employment exchange, it woul contend that the appointment was con and the petitioner was not entitle and Ru Rules are for the benefit of the Ex point of time, joined Military se poi threat to the Nation and in the wake thr 9. 9. A Division Bench judgment of cas case (supra) held that the ad hoc p the petitioner which was followed the to to be considered for the purpose tak taking into account the Military period of emergency, keeping in per Ful Full Bench judgment rendered in vill village Naroli Vs. State of Punjab 265. Similarly, in Tej Ram Vs. St 265 565 565, this Court, while granting the tha that persons who had been appo subsequently regularized were also sub benefits. Relevant observations rea ben “1 “15. As rightly pointed out by th for the petitioner, neither Rule 4 fo N National Emergency (Concessi cl clarification issued by the Chief of Haryana vide proceedings N of employment in “regular service” s em R Rule 4 of the Punjab Govern (Concessions) Rules, 1965. A pe (C service as per the definition unde se gi given by the Chief Secretary emp of the Government is required to of
Decision
of nt petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment pass t passed in Balwant Singh (supra). (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 15.01.2025 ashok Whether speaking Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.15 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document