Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SURJIT SINGH BRAR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/11/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
of the learned single judge of the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana made on October 7, 1993 in RSA No, 896/93.
The admitted facts are that the respondent had joined
military service after the declaration of Indio-china War.
emergency was declared on October 26, 1962. The respondent
joined the Army on May 25, 1963. The Government of Punjab
exercising the power under proviso the Article 309 of the
Constitution passed the Punjab Government National Emergency
(Concession) Rules, 1965 (for short, the ’Rules’). The Rules
provided for benefit of pay and seniority to ex-servicemen
re-employed in civil services. the respondent was discharged
from military service on September 24, 1973 and there after,
he was appointed in January, 1979 as L.D.C. in ex-servicemen
quota. He was granted the benefit of the increments and
seniority in terms of Rules 2 and 4 of the Rules,
Subsequently, realising the mistake that he was not entitled
to two increments after the Indo-China Emergency was
lifted, the same was recalled by order dated 21.4.1987.
After issuing the notice, they withdraw the benefit on
February 18, 1988. Calling in question, the said action of
the appellants, the respondent filed a civil suit on April
27, 1988. It may be relevant, at this juncture, to note that
during Indo-Bangla War, the Government had declared the
Emergency of December 3, 1971 which was lifted on March 22,
1973. Consequently, the respondent has claimed the benefit
of seniority and pay for the period of service rendered
during the period of second Emergency. The trial Court
dismissed the suit but on appeal the Additional District
Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit and granted
the benefit of two increments. When second appeal was filed,
the High Court dismissed the same. Thus, this appeal by
special leave.
The contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant is that under the Rules, the personnel who
rendered the military service during Emergency of Indo-China
was alone is entitled to the benefit. Though the respondent
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
continued after the lifting of the first Emergency and
during the period of second Emergency, namely, Indo-Bangala
War, the period of aid service would not be counted under
the Rules. we find force in the contention. This question,
in the first instance, was considered by this Court in
(Ex.Capt.) Randhir Singh Dhull vs. S.D. Bhambri & Or.
[(1968) LAB. IC 894] wherein this Court extracted the
definition of the military service which reads as under:
"Definition: For the purpose of
these rules, expression military
service, means enrolled or
commissioned service in any of the
three wings of the Indian Armed
Force (including services 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 on the 26th October,
1962, or such other service as may
hereafter ba declared as military
service for the purpose of these
rules. Any period of military
training followed by military
service shall also be reckoned as
military service."
"4. Increments, seniority and
pension, Period of military service
shall count for increments,
seniority and pension as under:-
(i) Increment- The period spent by
a person on military service, after
attaining the minimum age
prescribed for appointment to any
service or post to which he is
appointed, shall count for
increments. Where no such minimum
as is prescribed the minimum age
shall be as laid down in rules 3.9,
3.10 and 3.11 of the Punjab Civil
Services Rules Volume II. This
concession shall, however, be
admissible only on first
appointment."
This Court had held that the words emphasised clearly
showed that it is only the service rendered during the
period of Emergency that would be taken into account and not
any other period. No doubt, there is also provision for
other service being declared as military service, but no
order of the Government making such declaration has been
brought to out notice. Thus, it could be seen that this
Court has settled that the military service would be the
service rendered during the first Emergency unless there is
any further declaration under the Rules given by the State
covering the second Emergency. The personnel who joined the
service during the period to first Emergency is not entitled
to claim the benefit of the period of service rendered
during the second Emergency. The learned counsel for the
respondent placed reliance on the Circular Letter No. 325
(SII (3) - 72 of 5866 dated February 24, 1972 and contended
that the Government of India in paragraph 2 thereof, has
issued the benefit of military service to those who
continued under the first Emergency. The State Government is
paragraph 3, have also extended the same benefit and,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
therefore, the respondent is entitled to the benefit
thereof. We find that there is not force in the contention.
Para 2 thereof relates to the Central Government Servants
who have joined the military service during second emergency
and continued thereafter became entitled to the benefit.
Admittedly, the respondent is not a Central Government
Servant and, therefore, para 2 thereof has no application.
Para 3 in Government Service before he jointed the military
service which reads as under:
" The Punjab Government have
decided that the civil Government
employees who are/have been called
for military service during the
present Emergency shall be eligible
to the concessions enjoined in the
Punjab Government National
Emergency (concessions) Rules, 1965
read with the Demobilised Armed
Forces Personnel (Reservation of
Vacancies in the punjab Non-
technical service) Rules, 1968."
A reading thereof clearly indicated that the candidate
must be a government servant having been called for the
military service during the second Emergency; such
Government servant shall be eligible to the concessions
enjoined in the Punjab government National Emergency
(Concessions) Rule, 1965 read with the Demobilised Armed
Forces Personnel (Reservation of vacancies in the Punjab
Non-Technical Service) Rules, 1968. Under these
circumstances, the respondent is not entitled to two
increment which were wrongly given and rightly withdrawn.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The orders of the
High court and the District Judges stand set aside and the
suit of the respondent stand dismissed. No costs.