01.2025 Date Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab an & Ors.

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 f Praye tition for quashing the orders dated

29.07.1999 and 11 and 11.01.2001 vide claim of the pet it of he petitioner for grant of benefit of service rendered d ered during first emergency has been r been rejected.

2. Learned counsel submits that case Learn case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ju the judgment passed in Balwant Sin nt Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP-906 9062-1994, decided on 10.05.201

5.2013, against which LPA-1474- 2013 was also dis lso dismissed on 18.03.2014 so also th also the SLP on 18.05.2015, which learned State coun e counsel despite his best efforts, has n t the s, has not been able to controvert the factual position a ition and draw out any distinctive as tive aspects in the aforementioned judgment or cite a r cite any contrary law, relevant extrac extract of the judgment in Balwant Singh (supra) rea reads thus:- “6. 6. Admittedly, in view of 196 entitled for the benefit of coun f 1965 Rules, the petitioner was counting of Military service for ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.15 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10835-2001 2001 (O&M) 2 nsion. The said benefit was denied increments, seniority and pension. d that before his services could be d be to him solely on the ground that 5, the 1965 Rules were repealed and regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1985, the 1 The into force w.e.f. 12.02.1982. The the 1982 Rules had come into fo proached this Court and during the petitioner had, thereafter, approach tition, the amendment in the 1982 982 pendency of the present petition, ules, been made. Under the said Rules, Rules w.e.f. 11.02.1982 had been Ru servation of seats to the tune of 15% 15% there were only benefit of reservati amendment dated 08.06.2004, the initially. However, vide amend as to m 26.10.1962 to 09.01.1968 was to period of Military service from 26. The s of increments and pension. The be counted for the purposes of in nder: relevant Rule 8-A reads as under: sion – Period of military service 8-A, Increments and pension “8 National Emergency from 26th rendered during the First Natio October, 1962 to 9th January, 196 y, 1968 shall count for increments Oc and pension as under :- (i) (i) Increments - The period spe service (restricted to emergency pe to 9th January, 1968) after a prescribed for appointment to any s appointed, shall count for incremen age is prescribed the minimum a Ru Rules 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11 of the Vo Volume II. This concession shall on first appointment. 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) (ii) Pension - The period of militar shall count toward pension only in permanent services of posts, conditions:- military service mentioned in clause only in the case of appointments to ts to following osts, subject (1) The person concerned should (1) under military rules in respect of th (2) (2) Any bonus or gratuity paid in r the defence authorities shall have Government. Go (3) (3) The period, if any, between military service and the date of a post under the Government shall such period does not exceed one one year but not exceeding three y count for pension in exceptional c Go Government. Th This benefit shall be applicable to in Government services before or a in G 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 en the date of discharge from e or 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 d to ional cases under the orders of the ble to all those who were appointed re or after 11th February, 1982.” ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.15 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10835-2001 2001 (O&M) 3 as added w.e.f. 10.04.2012 wherein 7. Thereafter, Rule 8-B was add 7. e was restricted to the appointments the benefit of Military service was s. Rule 8-B reads as under: against the reserved vacancies. Ru sion – Period of military service 8-B. Increments and pension “8 d National Emergency from 3rd rendered during the Second Nat to 25th Marc March, 1977, shall count for December, 1971 De der :- increments and pension as under : ents for the aforesaid service shall (a) Increments - The increments f (a) y, who joined and rendered service be paid to those persons only, who od. This benefit will, however, during the aforementioned period. making first appointment on regular be given only at the time of making e under the Government. However, basis on a civil post or service unde en into account when the pay of a these increments will be taken int ed on account of his promotion, person is subsequently fixed on r revision of pay scale or otherwise; selection, new recruitment or revisi (b) Pension - The period of milita (b) shall count towards pension only i permanent post under the Governm conditions namely:- (i) (i) The person concerned should under military rules in respect of th (ii) Any bonus or gratuity paid in (ii) the defence authorities shall have Go Government, and; (iii) The period, if any, between (iii military service and the date of ap post under the Government shall such period does not exceed one one year but not exceeding three y count for pension in exceptional c Government. Go “Th “These benefits shall be available appointed in Government Service were in Service as on 1st Decem thereafter: Provided that these benefits shall b Pro on notional basis with effect from on account of pay shall not be paid 8. 8. A perusal of Rule 8-A would, benefit of Military service, whic under the 1965 Rules and withdraw 198 1982 Rules, was restored for th pension in the case of appointment Ru Rule further provided that all thes all those employees who were ove, military service, referred to above, only in case of an appointment to a to a overnment, subject to the following should not have earned a pension t of the military service in question; e by aid in respect of military service by 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 ailable to all the persons who were rvice against reserved vacancies and December, 2011 or are appointed shall be admissible for pay fixation from 1st January, 2012 and arrears e paid.” ould, thus, go on to show that the t the which had been initially granted ithdrawn in view of the un-amended for the purpose of increments and The ntment to the permanent posts. The ll these benefits were admissible to le to were appointed before or after ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.15 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10835-2001 2001 (O&M) 4

11.02.1982. Vide the impugned o 11. was subsequently up held on 0 petitioner was rejected on the grou view of the fact that the 1982 Ru benefit of Military service. Howev amended and benefits have been r necessarily be deemed to be entitl the Rules, for the purposes of coun 19. 19.01.1963 to 09.01.1968. The su petitioner was not appointed ag therefore, was not entitled to the b no avail as admittedly, the appoin resulted into regularization of ser 01.04.1985, as per the case of the r 01. the petitioner was regularized, ha the employment exchange, it woul contend that the appointment was and the petitioner was not entitle Rules are for the benefit of the Ex Ru point of time, joined Military se threat to the Nation and in the wake 9. A Division Bench judgment of 9. case (supra) held that the ad hoc p the petitioner which was followed to be considered for the purpose taking into account the Military period of emergency, keeping in Ful Full Bench judgment rendered in village Naroli Vs. State of Punjab 265 265. Similarly, in Tej Ram Vs. St 565 565, this Court, while granting the that persons who had been appo subsequently regularized were also benefits. Relevant observations rea “15. As rightly pointed out by th “1 for the petitioner, neither Rule 4( N National Emergency (Concessi clarification issued by the Chief of Haryana vide proceedings N employment in “regular service” s Rule 4 of the Punjab Govern R (Concessions) Rules, 1965. A pe (C service as per the definition unde given by the Chief Secretary emp of the Government is required to person who has been appointed o the service of the Government. gned order dated 24.04.1990 which 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 However, once the Rules have been been restored, the petitioner would entitled for the said benefit, as per f counting his Military service from The submission of the State that the t the ed against a permanent post and o the benefits under the Rules is of is of ppointment letter dated 29.09.1981 981 .e.f. of service of the petitioner w.e.f. f the respondents themselves. Once ed, having been appointed through te to t would not be open for the State to t t was not against a permanent post entitled for the benefits. The said the Ex-Servicemen who had, at that ary services, keeping in view the e wake of the Chinese aggression. ent of this Court in Sumer Singh's d by hoc period of service rendered by lowed by regular service was liable urpose of fixing the pension after ilitary service rendered during the ng in view the observations of the ered in Kesar Chand, resident of H) unjab & others AIR 1988 (P&H) s. State of Haryana 2011(2) RSJ SJ ng the benefit to the petitioner, held n appointed on ad hoc basis and re also entitled to reap the military ns 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 inted on Adhoc basis is also under ment. Even otherwise there is no ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.15 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10835-2001 2001 (O&M) 5 service of the petitioner has been dispute to the fact that the servic s best known neither the petitioner regularised. For the reasons best come out with the actual date on nor the respondents would come titioner was regularized. When Rule which the service of the petitioner w overnment National Emergency 4( the Punjab Governm 4(i) of 5, does not contemplate either (C (Concessions) Rules 1965, do anent service, the petitioner, who regularised service or permanent ment service long prior to the has been in the government e definition military service cannot amendment introduced to the defi accrued to him. be deprived of the benefits accrue the impugned order passed by the 16 16. In view of the above, the im the petitioner from the military respondents dis-entitling the p ole ground that he entered into service benefits on the sole g n Adhoc basis, does not stand legal government service only on Adho impugned order is liable to be scrutiny. Therefore, the impug e impugned order passed by the quashed. Accordingly, the impu d and a direction is issued to the respondents stands quashed and the m he military benefits alongwith respondents he petitioner, as per Rule 4(i) (ii) consequential benefits to the pet Government National Emergency and (iii) of the Punjab Gover (C (Concessions) Rules, 1965.” Resultantly, keeping in 10. 10 mind, it is held that the petitio m M Military service rendered from 1 the purpose of pension. Accordin and 04.11.1992 are quashed and respondent-State to grant the ben petitioner for the purpose of calcu consequential benefits be paid to t from the date of receipt of a certi complying with the conditions la Rule 8-A(ii) of the 1982 Rules, as R 11. 11. Writ petition is, accordingly, terms.” n in ing in view the said observation in petitioner is entitled to count the from 19.01.1963 to 09.01.1968, for , for ccordingly, orders dated 24.04.1990 990 ed and a direction is issued to the he benefit of the said period to the f calculating his pension. Necessary aid to the petitioner within 2 months a certified copy of this order on his 2 of ions laid down in Clauses 1 & 2 of les, as amended. dingly, 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 nsel for the parties, application is n is ays in re-filing this appeal stands Vide the impugned jud appellant was held entitled to him during National Emer 9.1.1968, for the purpose of pe ed judgment dated 10.5.2013, the tled to count services rendered by Emergency from 19.1.1963 of pension. ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.15 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10835-2001 2001 (O&M) 6 At the time of arguments fairly states that grievance rem of benefit of increments as p rendered during first emergen 9.1.1968. cate, uments Mr. Jagpal Singh, Advocate, ce remains only with regard to grant s as per the Rules, for the service 3 to ergency i.e. between 19.1.1963 to To the relief claimed Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab can 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 b cannot raise any objection as this from the rules known as the Punjab ergency (Concession) Rules, 1965. 965. it is this appeal is disposed of and it is n to the pensionary benefits, the , be or the period referred to above, be

4. In wake of the above, the present peti In wa nt petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment pass t passed in Balwant Singh (supra). (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

15.01.2025 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