CWP-5703-2001 (O&M) 1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 203 CWP-5703-2001 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.07.2026 Lal Singh Verma ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suneel Ranga, D.A.G., Haryana, *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the pensionary benefits, gratuity, leave encashment, G.P.F., C.P.F., revised pay scale and other benefits, allowances admissible as per service rules, with effect from 1.1.1996, alongwith compound interest at market rate i.e. 24% p.a. from the date of retirement till the date of payment. 2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had rendered military service during the proclamation of National Emergency (First Emergency) for a period of 5 years 2 months and 16 days from 26.10.1962 to 10.01.1968. The petitioner had again served during the second emergency from DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5703-2001 (O&M) 2 of 7 03.12.1971 to 23.04.1974. Vide order dated 07.06.1986 (Annexure P-1) issued by Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, PWD B&R, Karnal, petitioner had been granted benefit of military service rendered from 26.10.1962 to 10.01.1968 towards increment, seniority et cetera; and Date of seniority of the petitioner was fixed as 03.12.1971 and his pay was fixed accordingly. On 31.12.2000, petitioner retired from service and his pension was sanctioned vide order No. PPO-92250-S-HR. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner is that despite the recommendation made vide office order dated 07.06.1986 (Annexure P-1), he has not been assigned seniority and increments due to him, and the benefits of military service rendered by the petitioner during the second emergency have not been granted. It is contended that due to non-counting of service from 03.12.1971 to 23.04.1974, petitioner has been deprived of promotion. 4. Ld. Counsel further submits that the military service which the petitioner had rendered during the proclamation of emergency from 26.10.1962 to 10.1.1968 has not been counted towards his qualifying service for the purpose of granting the pensionary benefits, even though the above benefits were granted to the petitioner by the Superintending Engineer, vide his Office Order No. 274 dated 7.6.1986 and the entry to this effect was also made in his service book. The office of the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, i.e. Respondent No.3 has not counted the above service i.e. for the period from 26.10.1962 to 10.1.1968 (total period is 5 years, 2 months and 16 days) towards the DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5703-2001 (O&M) 3 of 7 pensionary benefits, knowingly, intentionally with malafide intention and just to put the petitioner into unnecessary harassment. 5. It is submitted that the Petitioner had even served a legal notice dated 15.01.2001 (Annexure P-3) upon the respondents under Section 80 CPC for releasing his retiral benefits alongwith interest. However, no action was taken thereupon. It is accordingly prayed that the present Writ Petition be allowed “especially in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release the pensionary benefits, gratuity, leave encashment of 300 days, GPF, CPG, FPF, revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996, and other admissible benefits etc. alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of accrual till the date of realisation of the payment, and for compensation award of payment of retirement benefits alongwith interest which should had been paid with two months from the date retirement till the date of payment.” 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable as the benefits claimed by the petitioner pertains exclusively to the period of military service rendered by him under the Defence Forces of the Union of India, which is an entirely distinct, autonomous and self-contained service, governed by its own statutory regime. It is further submitted that petitioner has not placed on record any Statutory Provision or any Instructions issued by the Government on the basis of which he is entitled to the said benefit. Moreover, petitioner is already getting pension and other retiral DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5703-2001 (O&M) 4 of 7 benefits from the Army and as such, is not entitled to double benefit. It is accordingly prayed that present Writ Petition be dismissed. 7. No other argument is raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent- State. 8. It is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is already earning pension under the Military Rules in respect of the military service rendered by him. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has also admitted that he has not refunded any gratuity in his department. On the short ground itself, it would appear that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit claimed. 9. It is further important to note that petitioner has retired as Sub Divisional Clerk from the respondent-department on 31.12.2000. It has been stated in the written statement filed by the respondent-State that upon retirement as Clerk on 31.12.2000, petitioner was granted all benefits which are gratuity, pension et cetera. It has also been contended that as the respondents did not exercise any administrative, disciplinary or financial control over the petitioner during his military tenure, and nor was any salary, allowance or contribution paid by the respondents for the said period, therefore, military service of the petitioner is not required to be recognised for pensionary benefits to be paid by the respondents. I find merit in the said contention. It is but trite that the respondents are not bound to grant pensionary and/or Service DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5703-2001 (O&M) 5 of 7 benefits to the petitioner for the Service rendered by the petitioner under a different employer. 10. Furthermore, and more importantly, Petitioner has failed to point out any Statutory Provision, Rule or Policy on the basis of which petitioner is seeking recognition of military service rendered by him. Even no such Statutory Provision, Rule or Policy has been mentioned by the petitioner in the Writ Petition on the basis of which respondents would be obliged to grant pensionary benefit, seniority or any other benefit of military service rendered by the petitioner under a different sovereign employer. This is more so as the benefits arising therefrom are exclusively governed by Defence Pension Regulations and Military Rules. It is reiterated that as respondents had not exercised any administrative, disciplinary or financial control over the petitioner; nor was any salary, allowance or contribution paid by the respondents for the said period, thus, for all intents and purposes, military service rendered by the petitioner under a different sovereign employer, would not entitle him to claim benefits thereof from the respondents. 11. It has further been brought to the notice of this Court that vide order dated 19.04.2001 (Annexure R-1), the respondents have decided legal notice dated 15.01.2001 served by the petitioner upon the respondents under Section 80 CPC. Perusal thereof shows that case of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents by passing a speaking order while giving cogent reasons which reads as under: - DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5703-2001 (O&M) 6 of 7 “As intimated by Superintending Engineer, Elect. Circle PWD B&R Br. Karnal vide his memo no 2551 dt. 22-3-2001 that as per home Deptt. General Service Notification the 20 July 1965 issued by Chief Sectt. to Govt of Haryana (Photo copy of Circular attd. for ready reference) that the period of Military Service mentioned in clause (I) shall Count towards pension in the case of a appointment is permanent service or posts under the Govt. subject in 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 house or gratuity paid in respect of military service by the defence authority shall have to be refunded to the State Government. 3. The period any between the date of discharge from military 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. Where as the official Sh. Lal Singh SDC is earning pension under Military rules in respect of the Military service in question Nor he has refunded any gratuity in this Deptt. so far. How ever any amendment in above rule is available with sh. Lal Singh SDC may kindly be sent to this office for taking further necessary action please.” 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to controvert or dispute the above said facts and findings. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5703-2001 (O&M) 7 of 7 13. Keeping in view the above noted factual and legal position, present Civil Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed. 14. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 14.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document