Dr. Jagmohan Singh vs The State of Punjab and Others

Mahesh Grover, J.—The petitioner prays for the benefit of military service under the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965. The petitioner was working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon with the State of Punjab when he responded to the call of emergency and he was inducted in the military service in 1963. After his release, he re-joined the service of the State of Punjab again as a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. Subsequently, he responded to an advertisement for joining as a Deputy Director Veterinary Service Class-I and was selected and appointed as a Deputy Director in the year 1978. The petitioner claims the benefit of Emergency Service Rules in particular, Rules 4 and 5 which are extracted here below:-

RULE 4

Increments: 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 age is prescribed the minimum age shall be as laid down in rule 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.

ii) Seniority: The period of military service mentioned in clause (i) shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the seniority of a person who has rendered military service.

(iii) Pension: The period of military service mentioned in clause (i) shall count towards pension only in the case of appointments to permanent services or posts under the Government subject to the following conditions:-

xxx

RULE 5

Seniority, promotion, increment, pension and leave of Government employees:-

The period spent on military service by a Government employee shall count for seniority, promotion, increment and pension in the service or post held by him immediately before his joining military service. A permanent Government employee who renders military service, shall earn leave during such service according to the leave rules applicable to him immediately before his joining military service. A temporary Government employee shall during military service, be governed by the military rules in all respects. The employee concerned shall be entitled to proforma promotion in his parent department under the next below rule and also to seniority in higher posts to which he would otherwise have been entitled if he had not joined military service.

The representations made by the petitioner were answered by the respondents and his claim rejected on the ground that the military service rendered during emergency is admissible to an employee towards increment, gratuity and leave etc. only at the time of first appointment and since the petitioner did not get this benefit at the time of re-joining the Department, he cannot get this benefit because of his subsequent appointment as a Director. The respondents also stated that since the petitioner had availed himself of the benefit of the reservation for the post meant for ex-servicemen, he had disentitled himself to the benefit of the rules, as such a benefit could be availed only once.

Reply to the petition submitted by the respondents would disclose a similar stand which is reflected in the impugned order Annexure P-7 quashing of which has been prayed for by the petitioner, while claiming the benefit of the rules.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the reasoning adopted by the respondents in the impugned order is fallacious. The petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of emergency service on the premise that he had availed himself of a reservation for the post meant for ex-servicemen while applying for the post of Deputy Director. Such a consideration in a reservation zone is not contingent upon the rules and the admissibility of the benefits such as increment, seniority and pension are totally independent of reservation made by the State for the category of ex-servicemen. The rules do not state anything to this effect and the interpretation of the respondents is unacceptable in the wake of their being no provision in the rules to that effect.

Even otherwise, the stand of the respondents can be said to be irrational for the reason that a person who has otherwise served the Army and not necessarily responded to the call of emergency, applies for an appointment in Government service against the reserved quota for ex-servicemen, then such a benefit would not be denied to a desirous candidate.

The reasoning of the respondents to this effect has to be negated.

This leaves the Court with the similar issue of the admissibility of the benefits of increment and pension to the petitioner by counting this period rendered by him in military during emergency.

Concededly, the impugned order would reveal that the benefit of military service was not given to the petitioner even at the stage of initial appointment when he re-joined the service as a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. For this reason, the denial of this benefit to the petitioner on the ground that he has availed himself of another appointment as a Deputy Director, would be to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of military service altogether.

It has been stated before this Court that the petitioner has since retired from service on 31.8.1994. At this stage, therefore, the benefit of seniority if granted to the petitioner, would merely be illusory. The only benefit that can accrue to the petitioner at this stage, would be to consider this period of military service rendered by him during emergency for the purpose of interest etc. The writ petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner by including the service rendered by him during emergency and compute his pension. The entire exercise be concluded within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the arrears from the date when he moved the representation. The petitioner is being pegged down to this date due to the reason that he had made the representation belatedly.