STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bunch of appeals, by the State of Punjab and by the private doctors in the services of Punjab Government deal with the question of inter se seniority of the respondents vis-a-vis some of the private appellants who had joined the services on completion of their medical education. The respondents while continuing in the final year MBBS course were inducted into the Army on provisional Short Services Commission (for short "ssc") with effect from 11/12/1968 and they were granted regular SSC w. e. f. 25/4/1969. They were discharged from the Armed Services on 26/4/1974, obviously on completion of the five years' tenure as a regular SSC. They joined the civil services in the State and are continuing as such even till today. They filed a representation to the State Government that they are entitled to be absorbed against the reserved vacancies and as such their seniority is required to be determined in accordance with the circulars issued by the Punjab Government on 6/4/1964 as well as on 21/4/1966, which in turn would mean that the services rendered by them in the Army from 1969 to 1974 would be counted. But that representation having been rejected by the State Government on the ground that the same cannot be done in view of the relevant statutory rules as well as Government Orders, they approached the High Court. A learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions with the direction that their entire period from 11/12/1968 till they are discharged from Army on 26/4/1974 will have to be counted for the purpose of their seniority in the civil service. The Division Bench however, came to the conclusion that the provisional SSC from 11/12/1968 till 25/4/1969 will not be counted, but at the same time, it held that the period for which these respondents served as regular SSC from 25/4/1969 to 26/4/1974 will have to be counted. It is against this judgment of the Division Bench the present appeals have been preferred.

(2.) It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that the two circulars both of the year 1964 as well as of the year 1966 unequivocally indicate that the concession would be shown to those employees who joined the military service during the emergency and since the respondents who were the writ petitioners, joined the provisional SSC on 11/12/1968, two months after the emergency was lifted on 10/1/1968, they are not entitled to the benefits accruing from the aforesaid two Government circulars. The Counsel also urged that even the statutory Recruitment Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India do not confer the aforesaid benefit to the respondents and as such the High Court was in error in granting the relief. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Chittaranjan Singh Chima and Anr. v. State of Punjab [jt 1997 (2) SC 570 = (1997) 2 SCALE 183].

(3.) Mr. Chopra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the terms of the language of the aforesaid two circulars, possibly may not apply to their case; but since while continuing in the final year MBBS course, the respondents having been persuaded to join the Armed services pursuant to the letter of request from the Ministry of Defence as well as certain circulars of the Army, they should not be deprived of the services rendered by them as SSC inasmuch as they have acted to their detriment having joined the Armed Services pursuant to such request from the Army which also the State Government duly forwarded to them. According to Mr. Chopra the Army instructions of 21/5/1963, the letter of the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab dated 1/3/1977 seeking approval of the Union Government for grant of Armed service benefits towards civil service, the letter of the Union Government addressed to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab dated 5/10/1971 indicating that the Central Government has no objection to the proposal of the State Government and conveying the approval under Section 82 (6) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 on a conjoint reading, it must be held that the Government did intend to confer the benefit and, therefore, the High Court was fully justified in granting the benefit in question.