Sakattar Singh vs State Of Pb. And Ors

CWP-7297-
-2000 (O&M)
1
IN
N THE HIGH COURT OF PU
UNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIG
GARH








CWP-7297-2000 (O&M)
Reserved on : 21.08.2026
Pronounced on : 03.11.2026
Uploaded on : 03.11.2026
Sakattar Sin
ngh
...Petitioner
Versu
us
State of Pun
njab and another
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KU
ULDEEP TIWARI
Present:

Mr. G.S. Bal, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
h




Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, P
Punjab.
*
KULDEEP
P TIWARI , J.(ORAL)
1.
The claim of the petitioner
for grant of benefit of ‘milita
ary
service’ ren
ndered by the petitioner during t
the emergency in accordance w
with
the Punjab
Government National Emerg
gency (Concession) Rules, 19
965
(hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Rules of 196
65’), was declined vide order dat
ted
01.05.2000
(Annexure P-12). This caused
d grievance to the petitioner, a
and
propelled h
im to file the instant writ petit
tion under Article 226/227 of t
the
Constitution
n of India, challenging the order
(supra).
2.
The instant writ petition is p
pending adjudication since 200
00,
before this C
Court. The present petition was
admitted by the Division Bench
h of
this Court, v
vide an interim order dated 07.11
1.2003.
MANPREET SINGH
2026.11.03 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-7297-
-2000 (O&M)
2
3.
Learned senior counsel for th
he petitioner while placing hea
avy
reliance up
pon the judgment passed by
y Full Bench of this Court
in
CWP-3489-
-1994 titled ‘Jang Singh and
others vs. State of Punjab a
and
others’ subm
mitted that the person, who join
ned the military service prior to t
the
date of proc
clamation of National Emergency
y on 26.10.1962, were held entit
led
for benefit
of military service, for the pu
urpose of seniority, increment,
re-
fixation of s
salary and other admissible allow
wance in accordance with the Ru
ules
of 1965.
4.
Elaborating the facts of the ins
stant matter, learned senior coun
nsel
for the petit
tioner submitted that the petition
ner had joined the service in Indi
ian
Navy on
07.07.1960, as Telegraphist
and rendered the service up
pto
06.07.1970,
i.e. for a period of ten year
rs. Thereafter, the petitioner w
was
appointed a
as Lecturer in English, on adho
oc basis at Govt. College, Rop
par,
through the
employment exchange and he
worked there from 02.02.1971
to
31.03.1971,
and thereupon, he was again
n re-appointed on 13.10.1971,
on
adhoc basis
at Govt. College, Zira and work
ked there uptill 31.03.1972. He w
was
further appo
ointed as Lecturer in English,
at Govt. College, Gurdaspur a
and
worked from
m 20.07.1972 to 14.03.1976,
on adhoc basis. Finally, he w
was
appointed a
as a regular Lecturer in Englis
sh through Punjab Public Serv
vice
Commission
n, on 30.07.1976. The petitioner
r while serving in the Indian Nav
vy,
passed Grad
duation in B.A. in the year 19
966, from Punjab University a
and
thereafter, h
he also qualified his Post Gra
aduation in M.A. (English), fro
om
Punjab Univ
versity, itself, in the year 1970.
5.
In his next submission, learne
d senior counsel for the petition
ner
has placed
reliance upon the provisions of
f Rule 4 (i) (iii) of ibid Rules,
MANPREET SINGH
to
2026.11.03 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-7297-
-2000 (O&M)
3
submit that
the petitioner is entitled to cla
aim the benefit under these Rul
les,
which has
been denied to him without a
assigning any reason, through t
the
impugned o
rder.
6.
Though the impugned order ca
arries no reasons for declining t
the
asked for r
relief, however, by filing writt
ten statement to the instant w
writ
petition, the
e claim of the petitioner was obje
ected, on the ground, that the ask
ked
for benefit u
under Rule 4 cannot be extended
d to the petitioner, as he served a
as a
Class-III em
mployee and that service cannot
t be counted towards higher sta
atus
class post i
i.e. Lecturer. Reliance is placed
d upon the Sub-Rule 4 (2) (a)
of
Demobilized
d Armed Forces Personnel (R
Reservation of Vacancies in t
the
Punjab Stat
te Non-Technical Services) R
Rules, 1968 (for short ‘the 19
968
Rules’), acc
cording to which, a person sho
uld possess minimum education
nal
qualification
n prescribed for direct recruitme
ent to the post on which he is to
be
appointed.
7.
The next objection is that the b
benefit of military service under t
the
Rules of 19
65, can only be extended to a p
person, who got influenced by w
way
of first eme
ergency and joined the military
service. The persons, who join
ned
prior to dec
claration of emergency, are not e
entitled to military service bene
efit,
as they had j
joined the service as per their ow
wn suitability as a Career.
8.
Learned counsel for the State,
, in order to defend the impugn
ned
order has fu
urther placed reliance upon the R
Rule 25 (b) (iii) (4) of 1968 Rul
les,
to submit th
hat there is a gap of more than
n six years in joining the regu
ular
service, i.e.
on 30.07.1976, from the date o
of relieving from the Indian Nav
vy,
and therefor
re, the said period is not condo
onable. He further placed relian
nce
upon the
judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court
MANPREET SINGH
in
2026.11.03 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-7297-
-2000 (O&M)
4
‘Chittaranja
an Singh Chima and another
vs. State of Punjab and othe
ers’
decided on 0
06.02.1997, to submit that the H
Hon’ble Supreme Court had alrea
ady
held that pe
ersons like the petitioner, who j
oined the military service prior
r to
the proclam
mation of emergency, are not ent
titled for the relief under Rule 4
4 of
Rules of 196
65.
9.
After hearing rival submissions
s, made by learned counsel for t
the
parties, the
issue which arises for conside
eration before this Court is, as
to
whether, the
e petitioner, who joined the India
an Navy, prior to declaration of t
the
first emerge
ency in the country, would be e
entitled for counting of his serv
ice
towards the
benefit as extended under Rule 4
4 of Rules of 1965.
10.
Before this Court embarks upo
on the respective submissions ma
ade
by learned c
counsel for the parties and exam
mine the legality of the impugn
ned
order, it is r
relevant to first have a glimpse
upon the apposite rules. Rule 2
of
the Rules
of 1965, defines the milita
ary service, which is extract
ted
hereinafter :
:-
“2. Definition-For the
expression military
commissioned service i
Indian Armed Force (
officer) rendered by a
operation of the Procl
President under Article
October 1962, or such o
declared as military serv
Any period of military tr
shall also be reckoned as
e purposes of these rules
the
service means enrolled
n any of the three wings of
(including service as a warra
or
the
ant
a person during the period
lamation of Emergency made
of
by
6th
352 of the Constitution on 26
other service as may hereafter
vice for the purpose of these rul
raining followed by military serv
be
les.
vice
s military service.”
11.
The expression military service
e would mean a person enrolled
d or
commission
ned service in any of the three
wings of the Indian Armed For
rce
(including s
service as a warrant officer) rend
dered by a person during the peri
iod
of operatio
on of the proclamation of E
Emergency on 26.10.1962 und
MANPREET SINGH
der
2026.11.03 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-7297-
-2000 (O&M)
5
Article 352
of the Constitution of India. It a
also includes any other such serv
vice
as may decl
lared as military service for the p
purpose of these Rules. Any peri
iod
which has b
been spent on training, followed
by military service was also to
be
reckoned as
military service.
12.
The issue of entitlement of re
elief under Rule 4 of the Rules
of
1965, to a
person who joined the milit
ary service prior to the date
of
proclamatio
on of national emergency has bee
en considered by the Full Bench
h of
this Court
in Jang Singh and others
(supra) case , wherein, it w
was
categorically
y held that a person who joine
ed the military service during t
the
emergency
period, would be entitled to th
he benefit of service i.e. the ent
tire
service, whi
ile a person who opted for Arm
my as a career, would be entitled
d to
the benefit
of emergency period alone wi
ithin the limited scope under t
the
Rules. The
Full Bench of this Court furth
her clarified the terms of milita
ary
service and
held that the person could be en
nrolled or commissioned in any
y of
the three wi
ings of the Indian Armed Forces
and their services would be one
e in
which a pe
erson so enrolled or commiss
sioned, has rendered during t
the
emergency p
period alone. The relevant is extr
racted hereinafter :-
“10. Unlike the State of
f Haryana, the State of Punjab d
did
not amend its Rule 2 of t
the Rules nor added proviso to t
the
Rule 4 as has been do
ne by the State of Haryana. T
The
expression 'military ser
rvices' as defined in the Punj
jab
Rules has a noticeable d
difference from the expression a
and
definition of Rule 2 as i
ncorporated by amendment by
the
State of Haryana. Rule
e 2 of the Punjab Rules, for t
the
purposes of proper unde
erstanding, can be bifurcated und
der
two parts (a) point of ti
ime of enrollment of the person
n in
the Indian Armed Force
es and (b) the service rendered
by
MANPREET SINGH
2026.11.03 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-7297-
-2000 (O&M)
6
such person. (Thus milita
ary service would mean, on a pla
ain
reading of the Rule (1),
enrolled or commissioned serv
vice
in any of the three win
ngs of the Indian Armed Forc
ces
including service as a
a Warrant Officer; (ii) serv
vice
rendered by the person
during the period of operation
of
the proclamation of eme
ergency made by the President
t of
India or (iii) such other
r service for the purposes of tho
ose
rules. This clearly means
s that the person could be enrol
led
or commissioned at any
y time in the three wings of t
the
Indian Armed Forces an
d the service would be one which
h a
person so enrolled or co
ommissioned, has rendered duri
ing
the period of emergency
y alone. The intention of the ru
ule-
making authorities to
give it a wide meaning and
d a
language of the Rule to
include the period of training as
s a
part of the military servi
ice and also by declaring that a
any
other service which the
authorities feel appropriate cou
uld
also included as the milit
tary service.
11. The expressions in
the latter part of Rule 2 must
be
read ejusdem generis to
the earlier part of the Rule. Bo
oth
these expressions in
the Rule must be constru
ued
harmoniously so as to g
give a meaning to the rule wh
ich
would be in consonance
e with the legislative intent rath
her
than the one which wou
uld defeat the very purpose of
the
Rules. The distinction be
etween the persons who formed t
two
distinct classes, i.e. tho
ose who joined the Army duri
ing
emergency and those
who joined Army prior there
eto,
would be a permissible d
differentiation entitling them to t
the
benefit of different set of
f Rules for the larger or the smal
ller
benefit. It could be said
d that the persons who joined
the
Army Service during em
mergency would be entitled to
the
benefit of service i.e. th
e entire service while the perso
ons
like petitioners who opte
ed for Army as a career would
be
entitled to the benefit of
the emergency period alone with
MANPREET SINGH
hin
2026.11.03 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-7297-
-2000 (O&M)
7
the limited scope of the a
aforesaid Rules.
xxx xxx xxx
16. We must consider th
he rules which were in force at
the
relevant time. The
Punjab Government Nation
nal
Emergency (Concession
n) Rules, 1965 were the releva
ant
rules which defined the m
military service as indicated abo
ove
and Rule 4 of these ru
ules provided that the period
of
military service shall be
e counted for increment, senior
rity
and pension in accordan
nce with the manner prescribed
d in
those Rules. The expres
ssion 'military service' has to
be
construed in terms of the
e definition found in Rule 2. It w
will
be only such military
service which is covered und
der
Rule 2 which will entitle
e the person for any benefit for t
the
service rendered. The R
Rule clearly indicates that milita
ary
service will be only serv
vices which have been rendered
by
such officer/official dur
ring proclamation of emergen
ncy
period and not the other
service rendered by them in any
y of
the armed forces of
the country. After both forei
ign
aggressions when emerg
gency was declared in the count
try,
the Punjab Government
t had framed the rules being t
the
Punjab Demobilized Arm
med Force Personnel (Reservati
ion
of Vacancies in Punja
ab State Non-Technical Servic
ces)
Rules, 1977. In the prese
ent case we are not concerned w
with
the said Rules. Firstly n
no relief has been claimed by
the
petitioners on the basis o
of these Rules and in any case th
hey
would not be entitled t
to any relief for computing th
heir
entire service rendered i
in the military or any of the arm
med
forces in view of the rec
cent pronouncement in the case
e of
Chittaranjan Singh Ch
heema and another vs. State
of
Punjab and others 1997(
(2) RSJ 159.
xxx xxx xxx
21. In view of our
r above discussion, facts a
and
circumstances of the p
present case, and in view of
MANPREET SINGH
the
2026.11.03 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-7297-
-2000 (O&M)
8
subsequent pronounceme
ents of the Supreme Court we a
are
of the; view that the l
law laid down in Narinder Na
ath
Sharma v. State of Punja
ab was not correct law in so far
r as
it directed that petitione
rs in that case were entitled to
the
benefit of entire period
d of military service and in n
not
limiting the claim of th
he petitioners as afore-stated,
as
indicated by us above. T
The writ petition itself was direct
ted
to be listed before the F
Full Bench for disposal as per t
the
order of reference dated
d 29.4.1994 passed by the Divisi
ion
Bench. Consequently, w
we proceed to dispose of the w
writ
petition itself In our co
onsidered view the petitioners a
are
entitled to the benefit o
of Rule 4 limited to the extent
of
increments as all the pet
itioners have already retired. Ea
ach
of the petitioners is
entitled to the increments
in
accordance with Rules
s for the period of the serv
vice
rendered by them during
g the proclamation of emergency
y in
the country. The respon
ndents are directed to compute
the
benefits in accordance w
with the above observations for
the
purposes of adding the
e increment which the petition
ers
would have been entitled
d to and for consequential benef
fits
in terms of pension, if g
granted on such increment affe
ects
their pension. Howev
ver on the facts and in t
the
circumstances of the cas
e we leave the parties to bear th
heir
own costs.”
13.
The Division Bench of this Co
ourt further examined the issue
e in
LPA No.30
06 of 1997 titled ‘State of Punj
jab and others vs. Malkit Sing
gh’
decided on
27.08.2010. The respondent the
erein had joined the Army serv
vice
prior to th
he declaration of the first em
mergency. He served during t
the
emergency
period upto 10.01.1968, and w
was held entitled for the extend
ded
benefit und
der Rule 4 of the Rules of 196
65. The Division Bench had a
also
MANPREET SINGH
2026.11.03 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-7297-
-2000 (O&M)
9
examined th
he effect of repealing of the Rule
es of 1965, by the State of Punj
ab,
through a n
notification dated 12.02.1982, an
nd framed the Punjab Recruitme
ent
of Ex-Servi
cemen Rules, 1982 (for short ‘t
the 1982 Rules’) and categorica
ally
held that it w
will not affect the vested right of
f all those persons, who had join
ned
the Civil S
Services before the 1982 Rules
s. The relevant paragraph of t
the
judgment (s
upra), is extracted hereinafter :-
7. It is pertinent to menti
ion here that the decisions of Dh
han
Singh's case (supra) an
d K.C. Arora's case (supra) ha
ave
been followed by the Sup
preme Court in Hav. Bharat Sin
ngh
etc., v. State of Haryana
a and another, AIR 1996 Supre
me
Court 1705, wherein it w
was held that the Rules of 1965,
as
amended by State of Ha
ryana on 4.8.1976, confer benef
fits
to those who joined th
e State Government after havi
ing
been in military service d
during the Emergency. It was op
pen
to the State to withdraw
w the offer, but not qua those w
who
had already accepted
the offer and joined the St
ate
Government service. By
y introducing amendment in t
the
year 1976, the State G
Government did not withdraw t
the
offer wholly but restricte
ed it to those who had enrolled
d or
were commissioned in
n the armed forces during t
the
Emergency. The State G
Government was entitled to do
so.
But the grant of benefit
t of military service to those w
who
had joined the State Gov
vernment service while unamend
ded
rules operated acquired
d a vested right, by reason of th
heir
having accepted the offe
fer made thereby, which could n
not
have been defeated by
y the amendment. It is admit
ted
position that the Rules o
of 1965 were not amended by
the
Punjab Government,
as amended by the Harya
ana
Government. Therefore,
in our view, the learned Sing
gle
Judge has rightly come t
to the aforesaid conclusion that
the
benefit of military servi
ice during the Emergency peri
MANPREET SINGH
iod
2026.11.03 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-7297-
-2000 (O&M)
10
has to be granted even
to those persons, who had join
ned
the armed forces eve
en prior to the declaration
of
Emergency.
8. However, during the c
course of arguments, it was poin
ted
out that vide notificati
ion dated 12.2.1982, the Punj
jab
Government repealed th
he Rules of 1965 and framed
the
Punjab Recruitment of E
Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982. In o
our
opinion, the framing of t
these new Rules will not affect t
the
vested right of all those
persons, who had joined the ci
ivil
services before those R
ules, because Rule 9 (3) of the
ese
new Rules of 1982 pro
ovides that nothing in these ru
ules
shall be construed as de
epriving any person to whom the
ese
rules apply of any right
t which had accrued to him und
der
the rules, notifications
or orders in force immediat
tely
before the commencemen
nt of these rules. It is not the ca
ase
of the appellants that a
any of the petitioners from the
six
writ petitions of the first
t category joined the civil servic
ces
after the framing of new
w Rules of 1982. Therefore, we
do
not find any illegality in
n the order, passed by the learn
ned
Single Judge qua petitio
ners in the six writ petitions of
the
first category.”
14.
Learned counsel for the State
has wrongly placed reliance up
pon
the Rules of
f 1968, as the petitioner has not
claimed any benefit under the s
aid
Rules. Furth
hermore, these Rules do not a
apply in the case at hand as t
the
petitioner w
was not recruited against any rese
erved post under the Rules of 196
68.
The provisi
ons of these Rules will apply o
only in case a person is appoint
ted
against the
reserved post under Rule 3
of Rules of 1968, therefore, t
the
objection ra
aised by the State, in this regard,
is rejected. The reliance placed
by
learned coun
nsel for the State upon Chittara
anjan Singh Chima (supra) case
e is
MANPREET SINGH
2026.11.03 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-7297-
-2000 (O&M)
11
also a misp
placed reliance as the said ju
udgment had been passed wh
hile
considering
the Rules of 1968/1977, whic
ch are not at all attracted in t
the
present case
e. Further, the said judgment has
s been fully considered in the ca
ase
of Malkit
Singh (supra) . The relevant
t paragraph of the judgment
is
reproduced
hereunder :-
“5. During the course o
of arguments, learned counsel f
for
the appellant relied up
upon a decision of the Hon'
'ble
Supreme Court in Chitta
aranjan Singh Chima and anoth
her
v. State of Punjab and
others, 1997 (2) Recent Servic
ces
Judgments 159, wherein
n it was held that the benefit
of
seniority of service re
endered in the military towar
rds
seniority on civil pos
ts cannot be granted to tho
ose
personnel who had take
en the military service as a care
eer
and after retirement, th
ey came to be appointed on ci
ivil
posts in the quota pre
escribed for demobilised milita
ary
personnel, since they
y were not recruited duri
ing
Emergency. In that cas
se, two appellants were recrui
ted
before the declaration
of Emergency and were releas
sed
from the armed forces
s in the year 1974. They we
ere
declined the benefit of m
military service on their civil pos
sts,
to which they were subs
sequently appointed on 30.9.19
974
and 29.10.1976. While
quoting the definition of 'milita
ary
service' as defined in th
he Rules of 1965, it was observ
ved
that for the purpose of
f military service, it would be
an
officer enrolled or comm
missioned in any of the three win
ngs
of the Indian Armed For
rce and rendered service during
the
period of operation of th
he proclamation of Emergency a
and
such of the military serv
vice as may be declared thereaf
fter
by the Government for th
he purpose of the entitlement und
der
the Rules. It was furth
her observed that the benefit
of
military service under
these Rules could be granted
to
MANPREET SINGH
2026.11.03 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-7297-
-2000 (O&M)
12
those officers who rende
ered service in the military duri
ing
Emergency with a view
w to encourage the personnel w
who
came forward to serv
ve the country at the time
of
emergency. The Hon'ble
e Supreme Court delivered the sa
aid
judgment, while followi
ing its another judgment in Ra
am
Janam Singh v. State of U
U.P., (1994) 2 SCC 622, wherein
n it
was held that preferentia
al treatment be given to those w
who
joined armed forces dur
ring Emergency and that grant
t of
notional seniority in civ
vil services by taking into accou
unt
service rendered in arm
med forces is constitutionally val
lid,
but such benefit cannot
be extended to those who join
ned
armed forces during norm
mal times.”
15.
The next issue which requires
consideration of this Court is as
s to
whether the
e gap of six years, i.e. from the
e date of relieving from the Indi
ian
Navy, till
the date of regular appointm
ment of the petitioner would
be
considered a
as a legal impediment to extend
the asked for relief. This issue w
was
also consid
dered in extenso by Coordi
inate Bench of this Court
in
‘Capt. K.S.
Shergill (Retd.), Deputy Direct
tor Sainik Welfare, Ferozepur
vs.
State of Pun
njab’ decided on 19.07.2001 and
d held that the petitioner has nev
ver
claimed tha
at the gap period should be cou
unted towards the military serv
vice
rather he ha
as limited his prayer only for t
the period he rendered during t
the
emergency,
and therefore, the same was or
rdered to be reckoned towards t
the
qualifying
service. The relevant paragrap
phs of the judgment (supra),
is
reproduced
hereunder :-
“5. The stand of the resp
pondents is that the benefit cann
not
be given as the perusal
of the rule shows that the gap
p in
joining the service is bey
eyond the period of three years,
as
such, no benefit can be g
given to the petitioner in computi
ing
MANPREET SINGH
2026.11.03 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-7297-
-2000 (O&M)
13
the period for qualifying
g service enabling the petitioner
r to
be eligible for pension
n accordingly. It has also be
een
averred that in pursuant
to the definition given in Rule 2
2 of
the aforesaid rules, the
e period comprised in the seco
ond
emergency has not been
n declared as military service f
for
the purpose of these ru
ules, resultantly no benefit can
be
given for the second eme
ergency.
6. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has argued that
the
rule is explicit that if the
e gap is less than one year, the sa
aid
period automatically ha
as to be counted while granti
ing
military service benefit a
and that if the period is more th
han
one year but less than th
hree years, the said period shall
be
counted at the discretion
n of the Government. However, t
this
gap does not disentitle t
the petitioner for taking the bene
efit
of military service co
omputed during the emergen
ncy.
Admittedly, the gap rela
ated to the petitioner in this rega
ard
is more than three years
s but the claim is not that the sa
aid
period should be counte
d but the claim is that the milita
ary
service rendered during
the first emergency, i.e. 5 years
s 2
months 15 days should
d be counted while counting
the
period for qualifying se
ervice in respect of the pension
to
which the petitioner is en
ntitled. In this regard, reliance h
has
been placed upon the tw
wo judgments of Division Bench
hes
of this Court wherein si
imilar proposition had arisen a
and
while interpreting Rule 4
4(iii) of the rules, it has been h
eld
that the person who ha
as rendered such service shall
be
entitled to the benefit by
y way of counting the said serv
vice
for the purpose of fixati
ion of pension. The first judgme
ent
has been rendered in C.
.W.P. No. 518 of 1998 decided
on
25.3.1998 and that the se
econd judgment has been render
red
in C.W.P. No. 7254 of 19
998 decided on 6.7.1999.”
MANPREET SINGH
2026.11.03 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-7297-
-2000 (O&M)
14
16.
Rule 4 of the Rules of 1965, e
entitles the person for counting
of
military serv
vice for the purpose of incremen
nt, seniority and pension. The sam
me
is extracted
hereinafter :-
“ 4. Increments, senio
rity and pension: - Period
of
military service shall co
ount for increments, seniority a
and
pension-as-under-
(1) Increments :- The pe
eriod spent by a person on milita
ary
service after attaining
the minimum age prescribed f
for
appointment to any se
ervice or post to which he
is
appointed shall count
for increments. Where no su
uch
minimum age is prescri
ibed the minimum age shall be
as
laid down in rules 3.9, 3
3.10 and 3.11 of the Punjab Ci
ivil
Services Rules, Volume I
II. This Commission shall, howev
ver
be admissible only on fir
rst appointment.
(ii) Seniority :- The Perio
od of military service mentioned
d in
clause (i) shall be ta
aken into consideration for t
the
purposes of determining
g the seniority of a person who h
has
rendered military service
e.
(iii) Pension :- The perio
od of military service mentioned
d in
(i) shall count toward
ds pension only in the case
of
appointment to perman
nent services or post under t
the
Government subject to th
he following conditions:-
(1) The person concer
rned should not have earned
d a
pension under military
rules in respect of the milita
ary
service in question.
(2) Any bonus or gratu
ity paid in respect of the milita
ary
service by the defence au
uthorities shall have to be refund
ded
to the State Government.
.
(3) The period, if any be
etween the date of discharge fro
om
military service and the
date of appointment to any serv
vice
or post under the Gov
ernment shall count for pensio
on,
provided such period doe
es not exceed one year. Any peri
MANPREET SINGH
iod
2026.11.03 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-7297-
-2000 (O&M)
15
exceeding one year but n
not exceeding three years may a
lso
be allowed to court for p
pension in exceptional cases und
der
the orders of the Govern
ment.”
17.
In view of the above laid down
n propositions, the petitioner is he
eld
entitled for
the limited relief/benefit of Ru
le 4 of Rules of 1965, only to t
the
extent of in
crement as he has already retire
ed from the service. The increme
ent
is to be co
unted in accordance with the R
Rules of 1965, for the period
he
rendered th
he service during the first nat
tional emergency in the count
try.
Accordingly
y, the impugned order is set asi
ide and the instant writ petition
n is
partially all
lowed . The respondent/State is
s directed to count the period
of
actual mili
tary service rendered by the
e petitioner during the nation
nal
emergency
for extending the benefit as per
r Rule 4 of the Rules of 1965 a
and
any other co
onsequential benefits in terms of
f pension.
18.
Pending applications, if any, sta
and disposed of accordingly.


(KULDEEP TIWARI)
JUDGE


Pronounced
Manpreet




rd
d on : 03 November, 2026 .
Whether speaking/reasoned
Whether reportable
: Yes
: Yes
MANPREET SINGH
2026.11.03 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment