Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab

IN T

103-1

Sukhdev Singh

State of Punjab a

CORAM: HO

*** Present : Mr. Mr.

*** AMAN CHAUD

1.

Pray

29.07.1999 and service rendered

2.

Lea covered by the j others, CWP-90 2013 was also d learned State cou factual position judgment or cite Singh (supra) rea "6 en

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGAR

CW

Dat

vs. and others

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN ** RK Arora, Advocate for the pet Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punj ** DHARY, J. (ORAL) yer made in the present petition

11.01.2001 vide claim of the pe during first emergency has been arned counsel submits that case judgment passed in Balwant S 062-1994, decided on 10.05.20 dismissed on 18.03.2014 so also unsel despite his best efforts, has and draw out any distinctive e any contrary law, relevant extra ads thus:-

¶6Admittedly, in view of 19 ntitled for the benefit of cou

JAB & HARYANA RH WP-10835-2001 (O&M) te of decision: 15.01.2025 … Petitioner … Respondents

N CHAUDHARY titioner. njab. n for quashing the orders dated etitioner for grant of benefit of n rejected. e of the petitioner is squarely ingh vs. State of Punjab and 013, against which LPA-1474-the SLP on 18.05.2015, which s not been able to controvert the aspects in the aforementioned act of the judgment in Balwant 965 Rules, the petitioner was

in to re th p p R th in p b re "8 re O an (i se to pr ap ag R V on (i sh p co (1 un (2 th G (3 m p su on co G T in

ncrements, seniority and pension o him solely on the ground tha egularized w.e.f. 01.04.1985, the he 1982 Rules had come into etitioner had, thereafter, approa endency of the present petition Rules w.e.f. 11.02.1982 had been here were only benefit of reserva nitially. However, vide amen eriod of Military service from 26 e counted for the purposes of elevant Rule 8-A reads as under: 8-A, Increments and pension endered during the First Nat October, 1962 to 9th January, 19 nd pension as under :-

i) Increments - The period sp ervice (restricted to emergency p o 9th January, 1968) after rescribed for appointment to any ppointed, shall count for increm ge is prescribed the minimum Rules 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11 of the Volume II. This concession shal n first appointment.

ii) Pension - The period of milit hall count toward pension only ermanent services of posts, onditions:- 1) The person concerned shou nder military rules in respect of t 2) Any bonus or gratuity paid in he defence authorities shall hav Government. 3) The period, if any, between military service and the date of ost under the Government sha uch period does not exceed one ne year but not exceeding three ount for pension in exceptional Government. This benefit shall be applicable to n Government services before or

n. The said benefit was denied at before his services could be e 1965 Rules were repealed and force w.e.f. 12.02.1982. The ached this Court and during the n, the amendment in the 1982 n made. Under the said Rules, ation of seats to the tune of 15% ndment dated 08.06.2004, the

6.10.1962 to 09.01.1968 was to increments and pension. The

n – Period of military service tional Emergency from 26th 968 shall count for increments pend by a person on military period from 26th October, 1962 attaining the minimum age y service or post, to which he is ments. Where no such minimum age shall be as laid down in e Punjab Civil Services Rules ll however, be admissible only ary service mentioned in clause in the case of appointments to , subject to the following uld not have earned a pension the military service in question. n respect of military service by ve to be refunded to the State n the date of discharge from appointment to any service or ll count for pension, provided e year. Any period exceeding e years may also be allowed to l cases under the orders of the o all those who were appointed r after 11th February, 1982."

th ag "8 re D in (a b du b b th p se (b sh p co (i un (i th G (i m p su on co G "T ap w th P on on b un p R al

. Thereafter, Rule 8-B was ad he benefit of Military service wa gainst the reserved vacancies. R 8-B. Increments and pension endered during the Second N December, 1971 to 25th Ma ncrements and pension as under a) Increments -The increments e paid to those persons only, wh uring the aforementioned perio e given only at the time of makin asis on a civil post or service un hese increments will be taken in erson is subsequently fixed o election, new recruitment or revi b) Pension -The period of mili hall count towards pension only ermanent post under the Govern onditions namely:-

i) The person concerned shoul nder military rules in respect of t

ii) Any bonus or gratuity paid in he defence authorities shall hav Government, and;

iii) The period, if any, betwee military service and the date of ost under the Government shal uch period does not exceed on ne year but not exceeding three ount for pension in exceptional Government. These benefits shall be availabl ppointed in Government Service were in Service as on 1st Dece hereafter: rovided that these benefits shall n notional basis with effect from n account of pay shall not be pai . A perusal of Rule 8-A would enefit of Military service, whi nder the 1965 Rules and withdra 982 Rules, was restored for th ension in the case of appointme Rule further provided that all the ll those employees who wer

dded w.e.f. 10.04.2012 wherein as restricted to the appointments Rule 8-B reads as under: n – Period of military service National Emergency from 3rd arch, 1977, shall count for :- s for the aforesaid service shall ho joined and rendered service od. This benefit will, however, ng first appointment on regular nder the Government. However, nto account when the pay of a on account of his promotion, ision of pay scale or otherwise; itary service, referred to above, y in case of an appointment to a nment, subject to the following ld not have earned a pension the military service in question; n respect of military service by ve to be refunded to the State en the date of discharge from appointment to any service or ll count for pension, provided ne year. Any period exceeding e years may also be allowed to l cases under the orders of the le to all the persons who were e against reserved vacancies and ember, 2011 or are appointed l be admissible for pay fixation m 1st January, 2012 and arrears id." d, thus, go on to show that the ich had been initially granted awn in view of the un-amended he purpose of increments and nt to the permanent posts. The ese benefits were admissible to re appointed before or after

w p v b am n th p th n re th th co an R p th ca th to ta p F vi th su b N R p t

1.02.1982. Vide the impugned was subsequently up held on etitioner was rejected on the gr iew of the fact that the 1982 R enefit of Military service. How mended and benefits have been ecessarily be deemed to be enti he Rules, for the purposes of cou

9.01.1963 to 09.01.1968. The s etitioner was not appointed a herefore, was not entitled to the o avail as admittedly, the appoi esulted into regularization of s

1.04.1985, as per the case of the he petitioner was regularized, h he employment exchange, it wou ontend that the appointment wa nd the petitioner was not entitl Rules are for the benefit of the E oint of time, joined Military hreat to the Nation and in the wa . A Division Bench judgment o ase (supra) held that the ad hoc he petitioner which was followe o be considered for the purpos aking into account the Military eriod of emergency, keeping in ull Bench judgment rendered illage Naroli Vs. State of Punj

¶65Similarly, in Tej Ram Vs. S 65, this Court, while granting th hat persons who had been ap ubsequently regularized were al enefits. Relevant observations r "15. As rightly pointed out by for the petitioner, neither Rule 4 National Emergency (Concess clarification issued by the Chie of Haryana vide proceedings N employment in "regular service" Rule 4 of the Punjab Gove (Concessions) Rules, 1965. A p service as per the definition und given by the Chief Secretary em of the Government is required t person who has been appointed the service of the Government

d order dated 24.04.1990 which

04.10.1992, the case of the ound of repeal of Rules and in Rules did not provide any such wever, once the Rules have been n restored, the petitioner would itled for the said benefit, as per unting his Military service from submission of the State that the against a permanent post and e benefits under the Rules is of intment letter dated 29.09.1981 service of the petitioner w.e.f. e respondents themselves. Once having been appointed through uld not be open for the State to as not against a permanent post led for the benefits. The said Ex-Servicemen who had, at that services, keeping in view the ake of the Chinese aggression. of this Court in Sumer Singh's c period of service rendered by ed by regular service was liable se of fixing the pension after y service rendered during the n view the observations of the in Kesar Chand, resident of jab & others AIR 1988 (P&H) State of Haryana 2011(2) RSJ he benefit to the petitioner, held pointed on ad hoc basis and lso entitled to reap the military reads as under: the learned Counsel appearing 4(i) of the Punjab Government sions) Rules, 1965 nor the f Secretary to the Government No.12/14/84-2GS-II speaks of " so as to get the benefits under ernment National Emergency person who had put in military der Rule 2 and the clarification mployment in "service or post" to reap the military benefits. A d on Adhoc basis is also under t. Even otherwise there is no f

r n w r h b r r r m M t r p R te

3.

Rele

dispute to the fact that the serv regularised. For the reasons bes nor the respondents would com which the service of the petition 4(i) of the Punjab Govern (Concessions) Rules 1965, d regularised service or permanen has been in the government amendment introduced to the de be deprived of the benefits accru

¶16In view of the above, the i respondents dis-entitling the service benefits on the sole government service only on Ad scrutiny. Therefore, the impu quashed. Accordingly, the im respondents stands quashed an respondents to grant the consequential benefits to the p and (iii) of the Punjab Gove (Concessions) Rules, 1965."

¶10Resultantly, keeping in mind, it is held that the petit Military service rendered from the purpose of pension. Accord and 04.11.1992 are quashed an respondent-State to grant the be petitioner for the purpose of calc consequential benefits be paid to from the date of receipt of a cer complying with the conditions Rule 8-A(ii) of the 1982 Rules, a

¶1Writ petition is, accordingl erms." evant portion of judgment in LPA "CM No. 3756 of 2013

After hearing counsel allowed. Delay of 19 days condoned. LPA No. 1474 of 2013

Vide the impugned ju appellant was held entitled him during National Em

9.1.1968, for the purpose of p

vice of the petitioner has been st known neither the petitioner me out with the actual date on ner was regularized. When Rule nment National Emergency does not contemplate either nt service, the petitioner, who t service long prior to the efinition military service cannot ued to him. impugned order passed by the petitioner from the military ground that he entered into dhoc basis, does not stand legal ugned order is liable to be mpugned order passed by the nd a direction is issued to the military benefits alongwith petitioner, as per Rule 4(i) (ii) ernment National Emergency n view the said observation in tioner is entitled to count the

19.01.1963 to 09.01.1968, for dingly, orders dated 24.04.1990 nd a direction is issued to the enefit of the said period to the culating his pension. Necessary o the petitioner within 2 months rtified copy of this order on his laid down in Clauses 1 & 2 of as amended. ly, allowed in the above-said A-1474-2013 reads thus:- for the parties, application is in re-filing this appeal stands udgment dated 10.5.2013, the to count services rendered by mergency from 19.1.1963 to

4.

In w the judgment pas

15.01.2025 ashok

At the time of argumen fairly states that grievance rem of benefit of increments as rendered during first emerge

9.1.1968.

To the relief claimed Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab can entitlement clearly flows from Government National Emerge

In view of above, this directed that in addition to benefit of increments, for th also given to the appellant." wake of the above, the present pe ssed in Balwant Singh (supra).

Whether speaking

nts Mr. Jagpal Singh, Advocate, mains only with regard to grant per the Rules, for the service ency i.e. between 19.1.1963 to d possibly Mr. Gaurav Garg nnot raise any objection as this m the rules known as the Punjab ency (Concession) Rules, 1965. appeal is disposed of and it is o the pensionary benefits, the he period referred to above, be etition is disposed of in terms of (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE : :