10.07.2025 Upkar Singh Dh gh Dhillon v. CORAM: HO
Case Details
CWP-17191-20 2000 -1- N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB NJAB AND HARYANA AT IN TH GARH CHANDIGARH 209 CWP-171 Date of de 17191-2000 (O&M) te of decision: 10.07.2025 Upkar Singh Dh gh Dhillon ..Petitioner State of Punjab unjab and another ..Respondents Versus CORAM: HO
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN AMAN CHAUDHARY Present: Mr Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate for th for the petitioner. Ms Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab. *** *** AMAN CHAUD HAUDHARY, J. (Oral) 1. Prayer made in the present petiti Pra petition for quashing the order date er dated 20.04.2000 with 0 withdrawing the benefit of Military S ilitary Service. 2. Learned counsel submits that peti Lea at petitioner had enrolled in the India e Indian Air Force on e on 30.09.1961 served up-till 01. ll 01.10.1976 whereafter he was r was re- employed in th in the State Cooperative Departme partment, Punjab as Sub Inspector o ctor on 21.02.1979. He 9. He filed CWP-482-1985 claimi claiming benefit of Military servic service rendered during during first emergency which was h was allowed vide judgment date t dated 23.07.1986 alon 6 along with a batch of petitions. The benefit was proposed to b d to be granted vide ord ide order dated 07.10.1997 (Annexure exure P7), however, vide the impugne pugned order, the said said proposal was withdrawn bas n based on judgment in the case o case of Chittaranjan jan Singh Chima vs. State of Punjab Punjab, 1997(1) SLR 697. 3. During pendency of this petition, Du tition, the judgment in the above wr ve writ petition was cha as challenged by the State in LPA-308 308-1997, which was dismissed vid sed vide judgment dated dated 27.08.2010 along with a batch o se LPA- batch of petitions with a lead case LPA 306-1997 titled titled as State of Punjab and others others vs. Malkit Singh, against whic st which SLP also came t came to be dismissed on 02.02.2015, 015, relevant paras whereof read thus: d thus:- “5. During the course of argu appellant relied upon a decision in Chittaranjan Singh Chima and others,1997(2) S.C.T. 88 : 1997 159, wherein it was held that th f arguments, learned counsel for th ecision of the Hon'ble Supreme Cou ma and another v. State of Punjab an : 1997 (2) Recent Services Judgmen that the benefit of seniority of servic for the e Court jab and dgments service ASHOK KUMAR 2025.07.16 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17191-2000 -2- rendered in the military towards seniority on civil posts cannot be granted to those personnel who had taken the military service as a career and after retirement, they came to be appointed on civil posts in the quota prescribed for demobilised military personnel, since they were not recruited during Emergency. In that case, two appellants were recruited before the declaration of Emergency and were released from the armed forces in the year 1974. They were declined the benefit of military service on their civil posts, to which they were subsequently appointed on 30.9.1974 and 29.10.1976. While quoting the definition of 'military service' as defined in the Rules of 1965, it was observed that for the purpose of military service, it would be an officer enrolled or commissioned in any of the three wings of the Indian Armed Force and rendered service during the period of operation of the proclamation of Emergency and such of the military service as may be declared thereafter by the Government for the purpose of the entitlement under the Rules. It was further observed that the benefit of military service under these Rules could be granted to those officers who rendered service in the military during Emergency with a view to encourage the personnel who came forward to serve the country at the time of emergency. The Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered the said judgment, while following its another judgment in Ram Janam Singh v. State of U.P., 1994(2) S.C.T. 68 : (1994) 2 SCC 622, wherein it was held that preferential treatment be given to those who joined armed forces during Emergency and that grant of notional seniority in civil services by taking into account service rendered in armed forces is constitutionally valid, but such benefit cannot be extended to those who joined armed forces during normal times. 6. We have gone through the judgment of Ram Janam Singh's case (supra). That judgment was delivered in different facts. In that case, the personnel who were seeking the benefit of military service joined the armed forces after 10.1.1968, when the Emergency was over and before 3.12.1971, when second Emergency was imposed. In view of the said fact, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the persons recruited to armed forces during the period intervening between two Emergencies were on the lookout for a career and joined armed forces of their own volition. It can be presumed that they were prepared for normal risk to which armed forces are exposed. If benefits are extended even to members of armed forces who joined during normal times, members of civil services can make a legitimate grievance that their seniority is being affected. In these facts, it was observed as under : "The High Court was in error in treating the respondent who had been commissioned on September 6, 1970 after the ASHOK KUMAR 2025.07.16 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17191-2000 -3- revocation of emergency, to belong to the same class as those who had been commissioned after November 1, 1962 but before January 10, 1968. The High Court was not justified in directing not to give effect to Rule 3 (1) of 1973 Rules and Rule 3 (b) of 1980 Rules so far respondent was concerned, for excluding the period from January 11, 1968 to December 2, 1971 while determining the seniority of the said respondent." In our opinion, the aforesaid decision of Ram Janam Singh's case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, all the petitioners were already in service, when the first Emergency was declared. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1965 does not restrict the benefit of military service to only those military personnel who joined the armed forces during the period of Emergency. Rule 2 of the Rules of 1965 provides that for the purposes of these Rules, the expression 'military service' means enrolled or commissioned service in any of the three wings of the Indian Armed Forces (including service as a Warrant Officer) rendered by a person during the period of operation of the proclamation of Emergency made by the President under Article 352 of the Constitution of India on October 26, 1962 or such other service as may hereafter be declared as military service for the purposes of these Rules. Any period of military training followed by military service shall also be reckoned as military service. In the State of Punjab, this Rule was never amended. However, in the State of Haryana, vide Notification dated 9.8.1976, this Rule was substituted by the following definition : the period of operation of "For the purpose of these Rules, the expression 'military service' means the service rendered by a person, who had been enrolled or commissioned during the proclamation of emergency made by the President under Article 352 of the Constitution of India on October 26, 1962 in any of the three wings of the Indian Armed Forces (including the service as a Warrant Officer) during the period of the said emergency or such other service as may hereafter be declared as military service for the purpose of these rules. Any period of military training followed by military service shall also be reckoned as military service." This amendment was made applicable in Haryana. The aforesaid Rule, as substituted by the Haryana Government, came for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C. Arora's case (supra) and Dhan Singh's case (supra) and it was interpreted that if an ex-army personnel had joined the State service prior to the amendment and has been given the benefit of military service rendered during the period of Emergency, though he had joined prior to the declaration of Emergency, the Government cannot take away the accrued rights of that ex-army personnel, even by ASHOK KUMAR 2025.07.16 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17191-2000 -4- making amendment to the Rules with retrospective effect. Therefore, in our opinion, the Division Bench of this Court in Jaimet Singh's case (supra), while relying upon the aforesaid judgments, has rightly held that if a person joined the armed forces prior to the declaration of Emergency and had continued to serve after its cessation on January 3, 1968, the period of service rendered by him from October 26, 1962 to January 8, 1968 has to be treated as 'military service' and he is entitled to the benefit of that service during the Emergency for the purposes of increments, seniority and pension etc., as admissible under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1965. 8. However, during the course of arguments, it was pointed out that vide notification dated 12.2.1982, the Punjab Government repealed the Rules of 1965 and framed the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982. In our opinion, the framing of these new Rules will not affect the vested right of all those persons, who had joined the civil services before those Rules, because Rule 9 (3) of these new Rules of 1982 provides that nothing in these rules shall be construed as depriving any person to whom these rules apply of any right which had accrued to him under the rules, notifications or orders the commencement of these rules. It is not the case of the appellants that any of the petitioners from the six writ petitions of the first category joined the civil services after the framing of new Rules of 1982. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the order, passed by the learned Single Judge qua petitioners in the six writ petitions of the first category.” immediately before force in 4. The judgment based on which the proposal was made, but withdrawn, as impugned in this case, leading to the filing of the present petition, having been subsequently upheld upto Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the said order dated 20.04.2000 cannot be sustained, ergo, the present petition is allowed and the same is hereby set aside. 10.07.2025 ashok ( AMAN CHAUDHARY ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Yes/No Whether reportable : ASHOK KUMAR 2025.07.16 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document