SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPSS No. 1966 of 2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Anil Anthwal, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Narain Dutt & Mr. Sudhir Kumar Nailwal, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ review applicants. Delay Condonation Application (IA No. 12996 of 2024) 3. There is delay of 872 days in filing this review application. 4. Reasons furnished in the delay condonation application are sufficient to condone the delay in filing the review application. Accordingly, delay condonation application is allowed and the delay in filing the review application is condoned. Review Application (IA No. 12995 of 2024) 5. This is an application seeking review of the judgment dated 16.12.2021 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1966 of 2018. 6. Learned counsel for the review applicants submits that coordinate Bench has overlooked the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 508 of 2016 and other connected petitions. He refers para nos. 13 & 16 of the judgment rendered by Division Bench, which are extracted below:- “13. In Thaneshwar Prasad Kundalia (Supra), the petitioner of that petition joined the Indian Army on 21.08.1967 and after training he was commissioned as an officer of the Indian Army on 23.06.1968 and he was discharged from the Indian Army on 09.04.1976, whereas in the case at hand, the petitioner [Writ Petition No.508 of 2016 (S/B)] was appointed in the Thal Sena on 21.08.1999 by Short Service Commission and he was released from service on 19.03.2005 and petitioner [Writ Petition No.518 of 2016 (S/B)] was appointed in the Indian Army on 03.11.1997 through Short Service Commission and he worked there from 03.11.1997 to 25.12.2002. The facts of the case of Thaneshwar Prasad Kundalia (Supra) was completely different. Therefore, we find that this judgment has no application to the facts of the case in hand. 16. In Rajendra Pratap Singh Yadav (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the Rules, 1973 ceased to exist after five years i.e. on 05.08.1978. The life of the Rules, according to the judgment delivered in Dilbag Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, (1995)4 SCC 495, was extended up to 1980. In any event, no one could be given benefit of the Rules, 1973 after 1980. Admittedly, respondent No.4 was appointed in 1994 and the benefit could not have been extended to respondent No.4. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that persons who joined the Army after the emergency was over cannot also be given the benefit which was extended to those persons who joined the Army during emergency. Those who joined the Army during the period of emergency virtually joined the war which was being fought by the nation. The benefit extended to such persons cannot be extended to the members of the Armed Forces who had joined the Army during normal periods. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that persons who have joined the Army during the foreign aggression could have opted for other career or softer career or service but the nation itself being under peril, impelled by the spirit to serve the nation, they opted for joining the Army where the risk was much more. Such persons formed a class by themselves and the benefit extended to them cannot be extended to the persons who joined the Army during the normal times. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the appointment of respondent No.4 was not against the vacancies reserved under the Rules, 1973, therefore, he cannot get benefit of the Rules, 1973. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed that the respondent No.4 did not join the Armed Forces during emergency and thus stealing a march over 181 officers was not only contrary to the Rules but was discretionary and arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the respondent No.4 and similarly placed employees could not have been given the benefit of the Rules, 1973. These Rules were not in existence when they were appointed. Therefore, they could not have derived any benefit from the Rules, 1973. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the respondent No.4, Rajendra Singh and Sudhir Kumar were wrongly given the benefit of the Rules, 1973.” 7. This Court finds some substance in the submission made on behalf of the review applicants. The Division Bench has held in the aforesaid judgment that the Rules meant for Emergency Commissioned Officer ceased to exist after 1980. Admittedly, petitioner was appointed in Indian Army in 1993; he was discharged from Army on 31.08.2008 and he joined State Services on 04.04.2011. 8. In such view of the matter, the Review Application is allowed. The judgment and order dated 16.12.2021 is reviewed and is hereby recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original number. 9. List this case on 02.04.2025. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 17.02.2025 Navin