Randhir Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors.

-1-
CWP-2717-2006 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-2717-2006 (O&M)
RANDHIR SINGH
..Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
..Respondents
Reserved on: 17.09.2026
Pronounced on : 02.11.2026
Uploaded on : 04.11.2026
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO
Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ravneet S. Joshi, DAG, Punjab.
*
SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J.
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to order dated
08.11.2005 and 23.11.2005, whereby, five increments granted to the
petitioner for the period from 03.12.1971 to 27.03.1977 were withdrawn and
recovery was ordered to be effected, respectively.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that petitioner
served in the Indian Army from 26.09.1963 to 30.09.1978 and thereafter
joined the Punjab Government as a Daffadar in the SYL Canal Project. The
petitioner was granted military-service benefit i.e. nine increments through
office order dated 24.04.1996. His pay was thereafter revised. He was to
retire on 30.09.2005. His pension case was returned by the Accountant
SAHIL
2026.11.04 14:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

-2-
CWP-2717-2006 (O&M)
General on 18.08.2005, with the observation that the benefit for the Second
Emergency was not admissible to him. The Department thereafter withdrew
five increments through orders dated 08.11.2005 and 23.11.2005 and
reduced his basic pay from 5,800 to 5,160, and revised his pension and
retiral benefits. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that impugned
orders are wrongly passed and the benefit granted to the petitioner during
second national emergency is wrongly withdrawn by the respondents. He
further contends that vide order dated 23.02.2006 Division Bench of this
Court stayed the recovery pursuant to impugned orders. He further contends
that petitioner is already at the fag end of his life i.e around 81 years old. He,
therefore, prays that the present writ petition be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents argues on the lines
of written statement filed by the respondents and further contends that the
petitioner was only entitled to benefit of military service during first national
emergency for which four increments were admissible but the petitioner was
wrongly granted the benefit of second national emergency, which was not
admissible under the applicable amended rules and government instructions.
He therefore contends that five increments which were wrongly/erroneously
granted to the petitioner were rightly withdrawn after review. He further
contends that before passing the impugned orders, show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner and the petitioner filed reply to the same. He,
therefore, prays that present writ petition be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole file of this case with their able assistance.
SAHIL
2026.11.04 14:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

-3-
CWP-2717-2006 (O&M)
6. Vide order dated 24.04.1996, the petitioner was granted nine
increments for the period of national emergency from 25.10.1962 to
10.01.1968 (first national emergency) and from 03.12.1971 to 27.03.1977
(second national emergency). Vide order dated 12.06.1996, the pay of the
petitioner was fixed in the revised scale. On 18.08.2005, objection was
raised by the audit department, who observed that the benefit of five
increments is wrongly granted to the petitioner since the petitioner was
entitled to only four increments. On 05.09.2005, notice regarding recovery
of excess increments paid to the petitioner was sent to the petitioner, who
filed his reply to the same. On 30.09.2005, the petitioner retired on attaining
the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. Vide impugned order dated
08.11.2005, five increments for the period from 03.12.1971 to 27.03.1977
out of nine increments granted w.e.f. 01.11.1979 vide order dated
24.04.1996 to the petitioner were withdrawn. And vide impugned order
dated 23.11.2005, the recovery was ordered to be effected.
7. On 19.07.2001, a letter was issued by the Government of
Punjab, Department of Defence Services and Welfare (Defence Welfare
Branch), which is reproduced as under:-
“Government of Punjab
Department of Defence Service Welfare
(Defence Welfare Branch)
To
All the Heads of the Departments.
Dated, Chandigarh, the 19 July 2001
Subject : Eligibility Criteria for Military Service
benefit to those who served during the Emergency.
Sir,
I am directed to invite our attention to the
instructions issued by the Government (in the Department
SAHIL
2026.11.04 14:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

-4-
CWP-2717-2006 (O&M)
of Defence Services Welfare) vide its letter No. 15/11/93-
4DW/2288 dated 13.10.1998 and letter No. 15/11/93-
4DW/1313, dated 21.6.1999 on the subject cited above,
vide which it has been decided that benefit of military
service is to be allowed to those ex-servicemen Punjab
Government employees who joined the defence services
during the operation of First Emergency, i.e. between the
period 26.10.1962 and 8.1.1968. These instructions are
based upon the judgement dated 6.2.1997 of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in case of Chitaranjan Singh
Cheema, Junior Sports Officer and another Versus
Government of Punjab and others (1997 (1) SLR 697).
2. It has come to the notice of the Government that
military service benefit has been allowed even in those
cases where the concerned ex-servicemen Punjab
Government employee joined the Military Service before
the imposition of the First Emergency which is in blatant
violation of the above-cited instructions and the ruling of
the Apex Court. It is, therefore, requested that all such
cases may be reviewed whether decided administratively
or judicially and the military service benefit, if found to
have been given wrongly, may be withdrawn after
following the due procedure.
3. It is further requested that all Court cases
involving grant of military service benefit be defended in
the court of law in consultation with this department even
if this Department has not been impleaded, any type of
advice with regard to the grant of military service benefit
may be obtained from the Government (in the Department
of Defence Services Welfare).
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
Superintendent,
SAHIL
2026.11.04 14:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

-5-
CWP-2717-2006 (O&M)
A copy is forwarded to all the Financial
Commissioners, Principal Secretaries and Administrative
Secretaries to the Government of Punjab, for information
and necessary action.
Sd/-
Superintendent
To
All Financial Commissioners,
Principal Secretaries, and
Administrative Secretaries to Govt. of Punjab.
I.D. No. 15/11/93-4DW/2147 Dated: 19 July 2001.
Endst. no. 15/11/93-4D/2148 Dated: 19 July, 2001
A copy is forwarded to all Chairman/Managing
Directors of Punjab Government, Corporations/Boards
for information and necessary action.
Sd/-
Superintendent”
8. The above referred to letter dated 19.07.2001 was clarified by
Department of Defence Services and Welfare (Defence Welfare Branch) vide
letter dated 05.08.2002, which is reproduced as under:-
“No: 16/22/2002-4DW/2533
Govt. of Punjab
Department of Defence Service & Welfare
(Defence Welfare Branch)
To
1. To all the Financial Commissioners/Principal
Secretaries and Administrative Secretary to the State.
2. All the Heads of Departments/Chairman/M.Ds. of
all Board/Corporations
SAHIL
2026.11.04 14:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

-6-
CWP-2717-2006 (O&M)
Subject : Clarification regarding grant of the benefit of
military service to those employees who rendered their
military service during the Emergency period.
Sir,
On the subject noted above, I have been directed to
invite your attention to the D government's letter No.
15/11/93-4DW/2288 dated 13.10.1998, letter No.
15/11/93- 4DW/1313 dated 21.6.99, and letter No
15/11/93-4DW/2146 dated 19.7.2001 and to say that vide
aforementioned letters, it was clarified that which ex-
servicemen were to be given the benefit of military
service. But it has come to the notice that action is being
taken to withdraw the benefit and to make recovery of the
benefit given by the departments from those ex-
servicemen who have been granted the benefit of military
service prior to 13.10.1998.
2. It is hereby clarified that :-
(a) Those case are not to be reconsidered in which the
benefit of Emergency period have been granted upto
13.10.1998.
(b) Those fresh cases which have been received by the
departments after 13.10.1998, they be considered in view
of the Supreme Court's judgement dated 6.2.1997 and this
department's letter dated 13.10.1998 and the benefit be
withdrawn and recovery be made in those cases where
the benefit has been granted after this date i.e.
13.10.1998 without taking into consideration the Supreme
Court's judgement.
Sd/-
Superintendent,
Endorsement No. 16/22/2002-4DW/2534 Dated 5.8.2002
Copy of the above is sent to the Accountant
General Punjab for information/necessary action.
Sd/-
Superintendent”
SAHIL
2026.11.04 14:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

-7-
CWP-2717-2006 (O&M)
9. A perusal of above reproduced letter dated 05.08.2002 clarifies
that the cases of those ex-servicemen, who have been granted benefit of
military service upto 13.10.1998 were not to be reconsidered in view of the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chitaranjan Singh
Cheema, Junior Sports Officer and another Vs. Government of Punjab
and others 1997(1) SLR 697 . And the petitioner was granted benefit of
military service before 13.10.1998, therefore, his case could not
reconsidered.
10. In view of the above, since the impugned orders were passed
without taking into consideration the clarification dated 05.08.2002,
therefore, the same deserve to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed . Impugned
orders dated 08.11.2005 and 23.11.2005 are set aside.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
02.11.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SAHIL
2026.11.04 14:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.