Chittaranjan
Singh Chima & ANR Vs. State of Punjab & Ors [1997] INSC 134 (6 February
1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
The appellants, Dalip Singh Sidhu and Chittaranjan Singh Chima were
enrolled in Indian Air Force in December 7, 1957 and September 3, 1959
respectively. After completing 15 years of service, they were released from
Army in their ranks as Sergeants on January 25, 1974 and December 31, 1974 respectively. When recruitment to the posts of sports
personnel was advertised, they came to be appointed as junior Sports Officers
by the Punjab Government on September 30, 1974 and October 29,
1976 respectively.
They filed Writ Petition no. 2860/76 in the High Court claiming past service in
the Air Force as demobilised army personnel. The Division Bench by judgment
dated December 9, 1980 following its earlier judgment in
State of Punjab vs. Pritam Chand [LPA No.401 of
1976] dismissed the writ petition. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
Shri
A.P Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the Government
had applied the Punjab Demobilized Armed State Non-Technical Service) Rules,
1977 dated April 20,
1977 with
retrospective effect dated February 28, 1973.
Rule 2 (c) reads as under:
"2(c)
`release' means (with its grammatical variations) release as per the scheduled
year of release after a spell of service, from the Armed Forces of the Union
but does not include release during or at the end of short service Commission
granted to being taken in actual service or release on account of misconduct or
inefficiency or at the request of a released Indian Armed Forces Personnel
himself," He contends that the said rule has no application to the persons
who were appointed before the 1977 Rules came into force. The High Court,
therefore, was not right in denying the benefit of the past service and the
consequential benefits ensured thereunder. The question is:
whether
the appellants are entitled to the benefit of their past service rendered in
the Military for the computation of their seniority in the civil service and
resultant consequential benefits.
The
Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession ) Rules, 1965, the rules under
which the appellants came to be appointed, connoted of the definition of
"`military service' means enrolled or commissioned service in any of the
three wings of the Indian Armed Forces (including service 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 of the
26th October, 1962 or such other service as may hereafter be declared as
military service for the purposes of these rules. Any period of military
training followed by military service shall also be reckoned as military
service." It would, thus, be seen that for the purposed of military
service, it would be an officer enrolled or commissioned in any of the three
wings of the Indian Armed Force and rendered service during the period of
operation of the proclamation of emergency and such of the military service as
may be declared thereafter by the Government for the purpose of the entitlement
under the Rule. Since the appellants came to be appointed under this, they have
not been given any benefit of reckoning of the military service for the purpose
of seniority and consequential benefits in the civil service. 1968 Rules and
1977 Rules contemplate of giving the reservation and also consequential benefit
of seniority reckoning the military service to such of those officers who
rendered service in the military during emergency with a view to encourage the
personnel who come forward to serve the country at the time of emergency.
Admittedly,
the appellants came to be appointed not during the emergency but in the regular
process.
This
Court in Ram janam Singh vs. State of U.P (1994) 2 SCC 622] to which one of one
of us (K. Ramaswamy, J .) was a member, had held that preferential treatment be
given to those who joined armed forces during emergency and that grant of
notional seniority in civil services by taking into account service rendered in
armed forces is constitutionally valid but such benefit cannot be extended to
those who joined armed forces during normal times.
The
counter-affidavit filed in the High Court does indicate that on at their own
request they were released from Indian Army (Air Force) and they are getting
pension as pensioner. Under these circumstances, they are the regular personnel
who have taken military service as a career and after retirement, they came to
be appointed in the quota prescribed for demobilised military personnel. The
question of seniority of service rendered in the military cannot be extended to
the personnel like appellants since they were not recruited during emergency to
whom the benefit of seniority and consequential benefits were given. Therefore,
the High Court, though for different reasons was justified in Court, though for
different reasons was justified in refusing to grant the relief sought for.
The
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
