Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
CHITTARANJAN SINGH CHIMA & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/02/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
The appellants, Dalip Singh Sidhu and Chittaranjan
Singh Chima were enrolled in Indian Air Force in December 7,
1957 and September 3, 1959 respectively. After completing 15
years of service, they were released from Army in their
ranks as Sergeants on January 25, 1974 and December 31, 1974
respectively. When recruitment to the posts of sports
personnel was advertised, they came to be appointed as
junior Sports Officers by the Punjab Government on September
30, 1974 and October 29, 1976 respectively. They filed Writ
Petition no. 2860/76 in the High Court claiming past service
in the Air Force as demobilised army personnel. The Division
Bench by judgment dated December 9, 1980 following its
earlier judgment in State of Punjab vs. Pritam Chand [LPA
No.401 of 1976] dismissed the writ petition. Thus, this
appeal by special leave.
Shri A.P Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants,
contended that the Government had applied the Punjab
Demobilized Armed State Non-Technical Service) Rules, 1977
dated April 20, 1977 with retrospective effect dated
February 28, 1973. Rule 2 (c) reads as under:
"2(c) ‘release’ means (with its
grammatical variations) release as
per the scheduled year of release
after a spell of service, from the
Armed Forces of the Union but does
not include release during or at
the end of short service Commission
granted to being taken in actual
service or release on account of
misconduct or inefficiency or at
the request of a released Indian
Armed Forces Personnel himself,"
He contends that the said rule has no application to
the persons who were appointed before the 1977 Rules came
into force. The High Court, therefore, was not right in
denying the benefit of the past service and the
consequential benefits ensured thereunder. The question is:
whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of their
past service rendered in the Military for the computation of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
their seniority in the civil service and resultant
consequential benefits.
The Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession )
Rules, 1965, the rules under which the appellants came to be
appointed, connoted of the definition of "‘military service’
means enrolled or commissioned service in any of the three
wings of the Indian Armed Forces (including service as a
warrant officer) rendered by a person during the period of
Operation of the Proclamation of Emergency made by the
President under Article 352 of the Constitution of the 26th
October, 1962 or such other service as may hereafter be
declared as military service for the purposes of these
rules. Any period of military training followed by military
service shall also be reckoned as military service." It
would, thus, be seen that for the purposed of military
service, it would be an officer enrolled or commissioned in
any of the three wings of the Indian Armed Force and
rendered service during the period of operation of the
proclamation of emergency and such of the military service
as may be declared thereafter by the Government for the
purpose of the entitlement under the Rule. Since the
appellants came to be appointed under this, they have not
been given any benefit of reckoning of the military service
for the purpose of seniority and consequential benefits in
the civil service. 1968 Rules and 1977 Rules contemplate of
giving the reservation and also consequential benefit of
seniority reckoning the military service to such of those
officers who rendered service in the military during
emergency with a view to encourage the personnel who come
forward to serve the country at the time of emergency.
Admittedly, the appellants came to be appointed not during
the emergency but in the regular process.
This Court in Ram janam Singh vs. State of U.P (1994) 2
SCC 622] to which one of one of us (K. Ramaswamy, J .) was a
member, had held that preferential treatment be given to
those who joined armed forces during emergency and that
grant of notional seniority in civil services by taking into
account service rendered in armed forces is constitutionally
valid but such benefit cannot be extended to those who
joined armed forces during normal times.
The counter-affidavit filed in the High Court does
indicate that on at their own request they were released
from Indian Army (Air Force) and they are getting pension as
pensioner. Under these circumstances, they are the regular
personnel who have taken military service as a career and
after retirement, they came to be appointed in the quota
prescribed for demobilised military personnel. The question
of seniority of service rendered in the military cannot be
extended to the personnel like appellants since they were
not recruited during emergency to whom the benefit of
seniority and consequential benefits were given. Therefore,
the High Court, though for different reasons was justified
in Court, though for different reasons was justified in
refusing to grant the relief sought for.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.