(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the respondents in the writ petition against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 12th July, 1990 whereby the writ petition filed has been allowed. The facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal are as under :
(2.) The appellants, who were released from the Army at their own request on compassionate grounds after putting in various periods of Military service, joined the Department of Cooperation in the Punjab State as Clerks on different dates against the posts reserved for Ex-servicemen in terms of the Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Punjab State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 1968 Rules). They submitted various representations to the State Government for granting them the benefit of Military service towards the fixation of seniority etc., but these were considered and rejected. Pritam Chand, appellant No. 1 then filed Civil Writ Petition No. 6003 of 1974 in this Court challenging the non-grant of t he benefit of Military service. The respondent-State in the writ petition took the stand that the petitioner having been released from the Army at his own request and not on administrative ground the benefit of the aforesaid Rules could not be given to him. It appears that the 1968 Rules were thereafter amended and the benefit of, Military service was sought to be taken away from the appellants as they had left the Army on compassionate grounds. This amendment was challenged in this Court and after a protracted litigation, the matter was taken to the Honourable Supreme Court. It appears from the pleadings as also from the judgment that at that stage the appellants sought to base their claim not only on 1968 Rules but also on the basis of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter called the 1965 Rules). The Honourable Supreme Court allowed the SLP and held that the Notification amending the 1965 Rules would not come in the way of the appellants and they would be entitled to seniority on that basis. In the case of appellant No. 1 itself the Honourable Supreme Court vide its order dated 5th Sept., 1984, held that he would be entitled to the benefit of Military Service as given in Ex-Capt. K. C. Arora and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, (1984(2) SLR 97 and these benefits were given to the appellants in accordance therewith. The State of Haryana apparently not fully satisfied with the interpretation put on the 1965 Rules by the Honourable Supreme Court, filed an application for review of the order and the said application was allowed and it was clarified that the benefit of Military service to count in the service of the Government was to be confined only to the period of Military service put in during the period of the emergency and not for the entire period of Military service. It was in that situation that the writ petition was filed by the writ petitioners challenging the benefit of the entire period of Military service to the appellants.
(3.) We have heard the appellant Pritam Chand, in person, as also the counsel for the respondents. No argument of any consequence has been raised by the appellant. The only assertion made is that the benefit of Military service having once been conferred ought not be taken away from him. He has also urged that the review application filed in his own case was dismissed by the Supreme Court and, therefore, it should be taken as if the entire period of Military service rendered by him should count towards his seniority. We have considered this aspect of the matter and find no merit in it. It would be seen that while disposing of the case of the appellant on 5th Sept., 1984, the Supreme Court had observed that it was being decided in terms of K.C. Arora's case. Subsequent to this date, the review application filed by the State of Haryana was allowed in which it was clarified by the Supreme Court that only the period of Military service put in during the period of emergency was to be taken into account for the purpose of determining seniority in the civilian appointment. As such, the grant of Military service benefit for the entire period was completely unwarranted and it was in this light that the orders Annexures P-2 and P-3 giving higher seniority to the appellants have been quashed by the learned single Judge. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.