State of Haryana and Others vs Karan Singh

Mahesh Grover, J.—This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 3.6.2006 and 22.8.2007 passed respectively by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as ''the trial Court'') and the Additional District Judge, Rohtak (described hereinafter as ''the First Appellate Court'') whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed and the appeal of the defendants-appellants was dismissed.

The respondent filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction claiming the benefit of military service rendered by him for the purpose of counting the same towards his civilian service. It was pleaded that the respondent had served the Indian Army as Sepoy from 21.6.1968 to 30.6.1985 and thereafter, he was appointed as Peon on 5.8.1989 in the Woman and Child Development Department of the State of Haryana. It was further pleaded that during the period he was in the service of the Indian Army, there was a National Emergency from 3.12.1971 & 3.7.1977 and in view of the provisions of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 (for short, ''the Rules''), as applicable to the State of Haryana, he was entitled to the benefit of his entire military service to be counted for the purpose of consequential benefits in the civilian service. It was alleged by the respondent that he had requested the appellants for grant of such benefit, but his claim was rejected. In the suit, he challenged the action of the appellants in refusing the grant of the claimed benefit and prayed that they be directed to do so.

Upon notice, the appellants appeared and filed their written statement resisting the claim of the respondent. It was pleaded that in view of the government instructions, the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of his military service.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the benefits of promotion, seniority, gratuity, pension and increments etc. as prayed for?OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court? OPD

Relief.

After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court concluded that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of his military service. Consequently, his suit was decreed.

In appeal, the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the First Appellate Court.

Hence, this Regular Second Appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellants relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhan Singh v. State of Haryana 1991 (1) S.C.T. 137 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Man Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana 2006 (3) S.C.T. 521, to contend that it is now settled that the benefit of military service is admissible only to those persons, who were enrolled or commissioned during the period of operation of proclamation of emergency and since the respondent was not enrolled in the Army during the currency of any of the emergency, he was not entitled to the benefit of his military service. He further contended that in view of the law laid down in the above mentioned cases, the findings of the Courts below are erroneous and deserve to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent was serving the Army at the time when the second National Emergency was imposed and therefore, the Courts below have rightly held him entitled to the benefit of his military service.

I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have gone through the impugned judgments and also the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants.

In my opinion, the instant case is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Apex Court in Dhan Singh''s case (supra) and by this Court in Man Singh''s case (supra). It is now settled proposition of law that a person, who joined the Army in pursuance to the call of emergency is only entitled to the benefit of military service rendered by him under the Rules.

Concededly, the respondent had joined the Indian Army on 21.6.1968 and served up to 30.6.1985, not in response to the call of National Emergency, but in ordinary period. In this view of the matter, the following question of law arise for determination in the present appeal:

Whether the benefit of the military service can be allowed to the respondent, who had not joined the Army pursuant to the call of National Emergency in view of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965, as applicable to the State of Haryana?

The aforesaid question of law has already been conclusively answered in Dhan Singh''s case (supra) and Man Singh''s case (supra).

Accordingly, this appeal is accepted, the impugned judgments and decrees are set aside and the suit of the respondent is dismissed.