The State of Punjab vs Hardev Singh

S.P. Kurdukar, C.J.—State of Punjab has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order dated January 10, 1994 passed

by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition 2325 of 1989. The learned Single Judge, on interpretation of Rules 3(1) and 5(1) of the

Demobilised Armed Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Punjab State Non Technical Services) Rules 1968, (for short, the Rules) granted

the desired relief to the writ petitioner - respondent.

It is unnecessary to set-out the facts in detail and suffice to mention some admitted facts which are as under:-

Respondent-Writ Petitioner was born on January 11, 1950 and passed his matriculation in 1968. He joined the Military service on May 20,1969

and came to be released form the said service on April 16,1975. He came to be appointed as Clerk on August 26, 1975 in the office of

Directorate of Prosecution and Litigation against the reserved post for ex-serviceman. Petitioner thereafter made applications/representations to the

appellant requesting to give him the benefit of the said Rules as he had served in the armed forces. It may be stated that these Rules were initially

published in the year 1968 and brought into force w.e.f. November 1, 1966. The said Rules came to be amended in 1976. Rule 5 which deals

with seniority and pay after counting the military service, Rule 5 under -went a substantial change and this was sought to be retrospectively applied

from 1966. There does not seem to be any dispute that if the said amended Rule is sought to be applied retrospectively respondent- petitioner can

get no benefit of military service.

Mr. Aggarwal, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, relying upon the amended Rule 5, urged that the amended rule has been brought

into force w.e.f. Ist November 1966 and in view of the amended provisions, writ petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of army service.

According to the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in holding that the amended Rules of 1976 would be applicable

prospectively and not retrospectively. He, therefore, urged that the judgment be quashed and set- aside and writ petition filed by respondent be

dismissed.

Mr. G.S. Manauli, learned counsel for the respondent:- petitioner, however, urged that the vested right which had accrued to the respondent-

writ petitioner by virtue of the existing Rules, can not be taken away by the subsequent amendment. In support of this submission, he drew our

attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ex-Capt. K.C. Arora and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Others, . Learned Counsel,

therefore, urged that the learned Single Judge has rightly granted the relief to the petitioner and there is no substance in the present appeal and the

same be dismissed.

We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as reported decision of the Supreme Court and we are of the opinion that respondent-

writ petitioner''s claim is fully covered by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Ex. Captain K.C. Arora''s case (supra). There is no

substance in the Letters Patent Appeal. Letters Patent Appeal to stand dismissed. The appellant to pay the respondents writ petitioner''s Costs.

Civil Writ Applications 1836 of 1994 and 1762 of 1994 do not survive in view of the above decision and the same also to stand accordingly

dismissed.