CWP-11478-1999 IN T 103 Behari Lal State of Punjab an CORAM: HON ***** Present : Mr. Mr. S ***** AMAN CHAUDH 1. Praye action of respond rendered in first em 2. Learn increment and pen affidavit dated 10 the petitioner is sq State of Punjab a which LPA-1474 18.05.2015, which able to controvert the aforementione 1999 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date vs. and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN C ***** Mr. RK Arora, Advocate for the petit Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punja ***** AUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Prayer made in the present petition spondent authorities not allowing th first emergency as he joined the Indian Learned counsel submits that the pe nd pension as he had given up the cla ted 10.09.1999 vide CM-21788-CWP r is squarely covered by the judgment njab and others, CWP-9062-1994, d 1474-2013 was also dismissed on 18 which learned State counsel despite trovert the factual position and draw ntioned judgment or cite any contrar 1 UNJAB & HARYANA ARH CWP-11478-1999 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.01.2025 … Petitioner … Respondents AN CHAUDHARY e petitioner. , Punjab. etition for direction to declare the ing the benefit of military service Indian Army on 20.12.1963. the petitioner is claiming only for the claim qua seniority by filing an CWP-1999. He states that case of gment passed in Balwant Singh vs. 994, decided on 10.05.2013, against on 18.03.2014 so also the SLP on espite his best efforts, has not been draw out any distinctive aspects in ontrary law, relevant extract of the the vice for g an e of vs. inst on een ts in the ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.15 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11478-1999 judgment in Balw “6. ent inc to reg the pet pen Ru the init per be rele “8 ren Oc and (i) ser to pre app age Ru Vo on (ii) sha per con (1) und (2) the Go (3) mil pos suc one cou Go 1999 (O&M) Balwant Singh (supra) reads thus:- 6. Admittedly, in view of 196 entitled for the benefit of coun increments, seniority and pension. to him solely on the ground that regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1985, the 1 the 1982 Rules had come into fo petitioner had, thereafter, approach pendency of the present petition, Rules w.e.f. 11.02.1982 had been there were only benefit of reservati initially. However, vide amend period of Military service from 26. be counted for the purposes of in relevant Rule 8-A reads as under: 8-A, Increments and pension rendered during the First Natio October, 1962 to 9th January, 196 and pension as under :- (i) Increments - The period spe service (restricted to emergency pe to 9th January, 1968) after a prescribed for appointment to any s appointed, shall count for incremen age is prescribed the minimum a Rules 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11 of the Volume II. This concession shall on first appointment. (ii) Pension - The period of militar shall count toward pension only in permanent services of posts, conditions:- (1) The person concerned should under military rules in respect of th (2) Any bonus or gratuity paid in the defence authorities shall have Government. (3) The period, if any, between military service and the date of a post under the Government shall such period does not exceed one one year but not exceeding three y count for pension in exceptional c Government. 2 f 1965 Rules, the petitioner was counting of Military service for nsion. The said benefit was denied d that before his services could be 5, the 1965 Rules were repealed and into force w.e.f. 12.02.1982. The proached this Court and during the tition, the amendment in the 1982 been made. Under the said Rules, servation of seats to the tune of 15% amendment dated 08.06.2004, the m 26.10.1962 to 09.01.1968 was to s of increments and pension. The nder: sion – Period of military service National Emergency from 26th y, 1968 shall count for increments d spend by a person on military ncy period from 26th October, 1962 fter attaining the minimum age o any service or post, to which he is crements. Where no such minimum um age shall be as laid down in f the Punjab Civil Services Rules shall however, be admissible only military service mentioned in clause only in the case of appointments to osts, subject to the following should not have earned a pension t of the military service in question. id in respect of military service by l have to be refunded to the State tween the date of discharge from e of appointment to any service or all count for pension, provided d one year. Any period exceeding three years may also be allowed to ional cases under the orders of the was for nied d be and e the 982 ules, 15% the as to The ause ts to ing sion rom e or ided ding d to the ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.15 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11478-1999 Th in G 7. the aga “8 ren De inc (a) be dur be bas the per sel (b) sha per con (i) und (ii) the Go (iii mil pos suc one cou Go “Th app we the Pro on on 8. ben und 198 pen 1999 (O&M) This benefit shall be applicable to in Government services before or a 7. Thereafter, Rule 8-B was add the benefit of Military service was against the reserved vacancies. Ru 8-B. Increments and pension rendered during the Second Nat December, 1971 to 25th Marc increments and pension as under : (a) Increments - The increments f be paid to those persons only, who during the aforementioned period. be given only at the time of making basis on a civil post or service unde these increments will be taken int person is subsequently fixed on selection, new recruitment or revisi (b) Pension - The period of milita shall count towards pension only i permanent post under the Governm conditions namely:- (i) The person concerned should under military rules in respect of th (ii) Any bonus or gratuity paid in the defence authorities shall have Government, and; (iii) The period, if any, between military service and the date of ap post under the Government shall such period does not exceed one one year but not exceeding three y ount for pension in exceptional c Government. “These benefits shall be available appointed in Government Service were in Service as on 1st Decem thereafter: Provided that these benefits shall b on notional basis with effect from on account of pay shall not be paid 8. A perusal of Rule 8-A would, benefit of Military service, whic under the 1965 Rules and withdraw 1982 Rules, was restored for the pension in the case of appointment 3 ble to all those who were appointed re or after 11th February, 1982.” as added w.e.f. 10.04.2012 wherein e was restricted to the appointments s. Rule 8-B reads as under: sion – Period of military service d National Emergency from 3rd March, 1977, shall count for der :- ents for the aforesaid service shall y, who joined and rendered service period. This benefit will, however, making first appointment on regular e under the Government. However, en into account when the pay of a ed on account of his promotion, r revision of pay scale or otherwise; military service, referred to above, only in case of an appointment to a overnment, subject to the following should not have earned a pension t of the military service in question; aid in respect of military service by l have to be refunded to the State tween the date of discharge from e of appointment to any service or shall count for pension, provided d one year. Any period exceeding three years may also be allowed to ional cases under the orders of the ailable to all the persons who were rvice against reserved vacancies and December, 2011 or are appointed shall be admissible for pay fixation from 1st January, 2012 and arrears e paid.” ould, thus, go on to show that the which had been initially granted ithdrawn in view of the un-amended for the purpose of increments and ntment to the permanent posts. The nted rein ents vice ove, to a ing sion e by tate ere and d tion ears t the nted ded and The ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.15 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11478-1999 Ru all 11. wa pet vie ben am nec the 19. pet the no res 01. the the con and Ru poi thr 9. cas the to tak per Ful vill 265 565 tha sub ben “1 fo N cl of em R (C se gi of 1999 (O&M) Rule further provided that all thes all those employees who were 11.02.1982. Vide the impugned o was subsequently up held on 0 petitioner was rejected on the grou view of the fact that the 1982 Ru benefit of Military service. Howev amended and benefits have been r necessarily be deemed to be entitl the Rules, for the purposes of coun 19.01.1963 to 09.01.1968. The su petitioner was not appointed ag therefore, was not entitled to the b no avail as admittedly, the appoin resulted into regularization of ser 01.04.1985, as per the case of the r the petitioner was regularized, ha the employment exchange, it woul contend that the appointment was and the petitioner was not entitle Rules are for the benefit of the Ex point of time, joined Military se threat to the Nation and in the wake 9. A Division Bench judgment of case (supra) held that the ad hoc p the petitioner which was followed to be considered for the purpose taking into account the Military period of emergency, keeping in Full Bench judgment rendered in village Naroli Vs. State of Punjab 265. Similarly, in Tej Ram Vs. St 565, this Court, while granting the that persons who had been appo subsequently regularized were also benefits. Relevant observations rea “15. As rightly pointed out by th for the petitioner, neither Rule 4 National Emergency (Concessi clarification issued by the Chief of Haryana vide proceedings N employment in “regular service” s Rule 4 of the Punjab Govern (Concessions) Rules, 1965. A pe service as per the definition unde given by the Chief Secretary emp of the Government is required to 4 ll these benefits were admissible to were appointed before or after gned order dated 24.04.1990 which on 04.10.1992, the case of the e ground of repeal of Rules and in 82 Rules did not provide any such However, once the Rules have been been restored, the petitioner would entitled for the said benefit, as per f counting his Military service from The submission of the State that the ed against a permanent post and o the benefits under the Rules is of ppointment letter dated 29.09.1981 of service of the petitioner w.e.f. f the respondents themselves. Once ed, having been appointed through t would not be open for the State to t was not against a permanent post entitled for the benefits. The said the Ex-Servicemen who had, at that ary services, keeping in view the e wake of the Chinese aggression. ent of this Court in Sumer Singh's hoc period of service rendered by lowed by regular service was liable urpose of fixing the pension after ilitary service rendered during the ng in view the observations of the ered in Kesar Chand, resident of unjab & others AIR 1988 (P&H) s. State of Haryana 2011(2) RSJ ng the benefit to the petitioner, held n appointed on ad hoc basis and re also entitled to reap the military ons reads as under: t by the learned Counsel appearing ule 4(i) of the Punjab Government ncessions) Rules, 1965 nor the Chief Secretary to the Government ngs No.12/14/84-2GS-II speaks of vice” so as to get the benefits under Government National Emergency . A person who had put in military n under Rule 2 and the clarification ry employment in “service or post” ired to reap the military benefits. A le to after hich the d in such een ould per rom t the and is of 981 .e.f. nce ugh te to post said that the d by able after the e of H) SJ held and itary ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.15 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11478-1999 pe th di re no w 4( (C re ha am be 16 re se go sc qu re re co an (C 10 m M th an re pe co fr co R 11. term 3. Relev 1999 (O&M) person who has been appointed o the service of the Government. dispute to the fact that the servic regularised. For the reasons best nor the respondents would come which the service of the petitioner 4(i) of the Punjab Governm (Concessions) Rules 1965, do regularised service or permanent has been in the government amendment introduced to the defi be deprived of the benefits accrue 16. In view of the above, the im respondents dis-entitling the p service benefits on the sole g government service only on Adho scrutiny. Therefore, the impug quashed. Accordingly, the impu respondents stands quashed and respondents to grant the m consequential benefits to the pet and (iii) of the Punjab Gover (Concessions) Rules, 1965.” 10. Resultantly, keeping in mind, it is held that the petitio Military service rendered from 1 the purpose of pension. Accordin and 04.11.1992 are quashed and respondent-State to grant the ben petitioner for the purpose of calcu consequential benefits be paid to t from the date of receipt of a certi complying with the conditions la Rule 8-A(ii) of the 1982 Rules, as 11. Writ petition is, accordingly, terms.” Relevant portion of judgment in LPA “CM No. 3756 of 2013 After hearing counsel f allowed. Delay of 19 days in condoned. LPA No. 1474 of 2013 Vide the impugned jud appellant was held entitled to 5 inted on Adhoc basis is also under ment. Even otherwise there is no service of the petitioner has been s best known neither the petitioner come out with the actual date on titioner was regularized. When Rule overnment National Emergency 5, does not contemplate either anent service, the petitioner, who ment service long prior to the e definition military service cannot accrued to him. the impugned order passed by the the petitioner from the military ole ground that he entered into n Adhoc basis, does not stand legal impugned order is liable to be e impugned order passed by the d and a direction is issued to the he military benefits alongwith he petitioner, as per Rule 4(i) (ii) Government National Emergency ing in view the said observation in petitioner is entitled to count the from 19.01.1963 to 09.01.1968, for ccordingly, orders dated 24.04.1990 ed and a direction is issued to the he benefit of the said period to the f calculating his pension. Necessary aid to the petitioner within 2 months a certified copy of this order on his ions laid down in Clauses 1 & 2 of les, as amended. ly, allowed in the above-said LPA-1474-2013 reads thus:- nsel for the parties, application is ays in re-filing this appeal stands ed judgment dated 10.5.2013, the tled to count services rendered by n in the , for 990 the the sary nths his 2 of said n is ands the by ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.15 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11478-1999 4. In wa the judgment pass 15.01.2025 ashok 1999 (O&M) him during National Emer 9.1.1968, for the purpose of pe At the time of arguments fairly states that grievance rem of benefit of increments as p rendered during first emergen 9.1.1968. To the relief claimed Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab cann entitlement clearly flows from Government National Emergen In view of above, this a directed that in addition to benefit of increments, for the also given to the appellant.” In wake of the above, the present peti t passed in Balwant Singh (supra). Whether speaking Whether reportable 6 Emergency from 19.1.1963 to of pension. uments Mr. Jagpal Singh, Advocate, ce remains only with regard to grant s as per the Rules, for the service ergency i.e. between 19.1.1963 to imed possibly Mr. Gaurav Garg b cannot raise any objection as this from the rules known as the Punjab ergency (Concession) Rules, 1965. this appeal is disposed of and it is n to the pensionary benefits, the or the period referred to above, be nt petition is disposed of in terms of (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No to cate, rant vice 3 to arg this njab 965. it is the , be of ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.15 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document