Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1989 (PNJ)

Rameshwar Dass v. State Of Haryana

2009-11-17

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2009
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The petitioner, who is an Ex-serviceman and joined the Cooperative Department on 30.06.1999 as Inspector (Audit), Cooperative Societies, Haryana, has filed the instant petition for issuing direction to the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner by giving him the benefit of 4 months and 10 days of military service which he has rendered during the period of National Emergency. 2. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner rendered service in the Indian Air Force from 22.02.1977 to 29.02.1992 when he retired from the Indian Air Force in the rank of Sgt. It is also admitted position that out of the said service, the period from 22.02.1977 to 03.07.1977 was the period in which the National Emergency remained in force. It is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled for seniority by taking the period from 22.02.1977 to 03.07.1977, i.e., 4 months and 10 days, into consideration in view of the provisions of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules), which are applicable on the respondent-State. It is the case of the petitioner that when in spite of various representations given by him, the respondents did not consider the aforesaid claim, then the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. 3. In the written statement filed by the respondents, it has not been disputed that the petitioner had served 4 months and 10 days in the Indian Air Force during the period of National Emergency. However, it has been stated that since the military service rendered by the petitioner during National Emergency was less than six months, therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit of the said period under the Rules. It has been stated that the petitioner had been informed by letter dated 30.07.2008 that the military service rendered by him during the National Emergency was less than six months, therefore, he was not entitled for the benefit of the said period in the matter of promotion. 4. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the limit of six months military service as prescribed under Rule 3 of the Rules is only applicable in the matter of age limit prescribed to any service. 4. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the limit of six months military service as prescribed under Rule 3 of the Rules is only applicable in the matter of age limit prescribed to any service. However, in the matter of increments, seniority and pension, the period of military service rendered during the National Emergency has to be counted, whether the said service is less than six months or more, as no such limitation has been prescribed in Rule 4 of the Rules, which provides for granting the benefit of period of military service rendered during the National Emergency towards increments, seniority and pension. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents argued that the limitation of six months military service is also applicable in the matter of increments, seniority and pension. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties. 6. Rules 3 and 4 of `the Rules are reproduced below for ready reference :- "3. Maximum age limit and minimum qualification:- (1) The maximum age limit prescribed for appointment to any service or post shall be relaxed in favour of a person who has rendered military service to the extent of his military service, provided he produces a certificate from competent authority that he had rendered continuous military service for a period of not less than six months and was discharged because of demobilisation or reduction not more than three years prior to the date of his registration at an employment exchange or the date of his application for employment under the Govt. (2) Person who has become disabled while in Military Service shall also be entitled to exclude from his age the period from the date he has been disabled upto the date of his application for appointment to any service or post under the Govt. or till the end of the present emergency, whichever is shorter. (3) In case a person who has rendered military service does not possess the minimum qualifications prescribed for any service or post, he shall be deemed to possess these qualifications if the appointing authority certified that such a person has acquired by experience or otherwise qualifications equivalent to those prescribed for that service or post. 4. (3) In case a person who has rendered military service does not possess the minimum qualifications prescribed for any service or post, he shall be deemed to possess these qualifications if the appointing authority certified that such a person has acquired by experience or otherwise qualifications equivalent to those prescribed for that service or post. 4. Increments, seniority and pension :- Period of military service shall count for increments, seniority and pension as under :- (i) Increments : The period spent by a person in military service after attaining the minimum age prescribed for appointment to any service or post, to which he is appointed, shall count for increments. Where no such minimum age is prescribed the minimum age shall be as laid down in rules 3.9, 3.10 an 3.11 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II. (ii) Seniority : The period of military service mentioned in clause (i) shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the seniority of a person who has rendered military service. [Provided that a person who availed of concession under rule (3) of rule 3 shall not be entitled to the concession under this clause.] (iii) Pension : The period of military service mentioned in clause (i) shall count towards pension [In case of first or any subsequent appointment to any service or post] under the Govt. subject to the following conditions :- 1) The person concerned should not have earned a pension under military rules in respect of the military service in question; 2) Any bonus or gratuity paid in respect of military service by the defence authority shall have to be refunded to the State Government; 3) The period, if any, between the date of discharge from military service and the date of appointment to any service or post under the Government shall count for pension, provided such period does not exceed one year. Any period exceeding one year but not exceeding three years may also be allowed to count for pension in exceptional cases under the orders of the Government. [Provided that a person who has been released from military service on compassionate grounds shall not be entitled to any concessions under this rule.]" 7. Any period exceeding one year but not exceeding three years may also be allowed to count for pension in exceptional cases under the orders of the Government. [Provided that a person who has been released from military service on compassionate grounds shall not be entitled to any concessions under this rule.]" 7. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Rules amply made it clear that the limitation of six months military service provided under Rule 3 is only applicable when the relaxation is to be given in the maximum age limit prescribed for appointment to any service. As far as for granting the benefit of military service towards increments, seniority and pension is concerned, which is provided in Rule 4, no such limitation has been prescribed. This Rule provides that the period of military service is to be counted for grant of increments, seniority and pension. Clause, (ii) of Rule 4 provides that the period of military service mentioned in Clause (i) shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the seniority of a person who has rendered military service. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of military service towards the aforesaid purpose, as he has already availed the concession under Rule 3. Their case is only that the military service rendered by the petitioner during the National Emergency is less than six months, therefore, it cannot be considered for the purpose of seniority. Thus, in my opinion, the respondents were not justified while not counting 4 months and 10 days of military service i.e. for the period from 22.02.1977 to 03.07.1977, rendered by the petitioner, towards seniority on the aforesaid grounds. 8. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the decision dated 30.7.2008 taken by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed, and the respondents are directed to fix the seniority of the petitioner after giving him the benefit of 4 months and 10 days of military service i.e. for the period from 22.02.1977 to 03.07.1977, rendered by him during the National Emergency. Petition allowed.