RAM CHANDER NAIN Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only relief which the petitioner seeks in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for the grant of the benefit of military service rendered by him before joining the civil employment.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the petitioner joined military service on August 23, 1963 and was later discharged on compassionate grounds on August 25, 1971. He then joined Food & Supplies Department, Haryana, on February 27, 1973 as a clerk and continued working there till September, 1982. On 28.9.1982, he resigned from his job to join the Labour Department as a Labour Inspector which he did on the following day i.e. September 29, 1982 where he is presently working. Since the petitioner had rendered some military service before joining his present civil employment, he represented to the State Government that he be given the benefit of his military service in accordance with the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter called the 'Rules') as applicable to the State of Haryana. The representations made by the petitioner were rejected on the ground that he was not entitled to any such benefit under the rules since he had been discharged from military service on compassionate grounds. Reference in this regard was made to a notification of the State Government dated 5.11.1976 whereby the Rules were amended to add the following proviso to Rule 4 of the Rules :-

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the State Govt. the facts stated by the petitioner have not been controverted. The ________________the stand taken is that in view __________________of the proviso to Rule 4 of the Rules added in the year 1976, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of his military service. It has also been stated that since the petitioner after being discharged from military service had joined the Food & Supplies Department in February, 1973, he could claim the benefit of military service in that department and he is not entitled to the said benefit when he subsequently joined the Labour Department as Labour Inspector.