DEVI DAYAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent-authority by which benefit of military service has been given to respondents Nos.3 and 4. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) On August 24, 1981, the Department appointed respondents Nos.3 and 4 as Clerks upto October 31,1981. Thereafter, vide order dated November 24,1981, the respondents were adjusted for die period from November 1,1981 to November 30, 1981. Such periodic adjustments were made from time to time. It is, however, clear that the orders of retrospective appointment were issued after long lapses of time. By way of instance, it may be mentioned that vide order dated November 23,1983, the said respondents were appointed with effect from March 1, 1983 to December 15, 1983. Ultimately, vide order dated August 8, 1985, the service of respondents Nos.3 and 4 were ordered to be regularised w.e.f. April 1,1985. This had happened in spite of the fact that Civil Wit Petition No.5563 of 1984 filed by the said respondents against the termination of their services was dismissed by a Division bench of this Court on February 21, 1985. Having succeeded in getting their services regularised, respondents Nos.3 and 4 claimed the benefit of 'military service' rendered by them during the operation of the proclamation of Emergency made on account of the Chinese aggression. On August 25,1988, respondent No.2 passed an order by which benefit of military service for a period of four years 10 months and 11 days was given to respondent No.3. By another order dated November 7, 1988, benefit of military service for a period of 1 year 9 months and 27 days was given to respondent No.4. Copies of both these orders have been collectively appended as Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. These orders were implemented with the issue of a tentative seniority list vide order dated June 18,1990. The petitioner's seniority and further promotion etc. were adversely affected. They requested the Department to give them copies of certain documents so as to enable them to represent. Their request was not accepted. Finally, they submitted a detailed representation to contend that the respondents were not entitled to the benefit of military service. The petitioners' representation having been rejected, they have approached this Court through the present writ petition. They impugned the action of respondents Nos.l and 2 in granting the benefit of 'military service' to respondents Nos3 and 4 on various grounds. It has been inter alia submitted that the 1965 rules were repealed by the 1982 rules. On the date of the passing of the orders in the year 1988 and the issue of seniority list in the year 1990, the rules of 1982 were in force. Under these rules, no benefot of seniority was admissible. Consequently, it has been prayed that the impugned action of the Department be set aside.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents Nos.l and 2, it has been inter alia averred that respondents Nos.3 and 4 had been initially appointed on ad hoc basis and were adjusted against various leave vacancies. It has been admitted that the writ petition fded by respondents Nos.3 and 4 had been dismissed by this Court on February 21, 1985. However, the services of the said respondents were regularised in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government. It has been further stated that "respondent No.3 and 4 were appointed against the vacancies reserved for Ex-servicemen". According to the respondents, the action is in conformity with the rules and the benefit of military service has been righdy given to respondents Nos.3 and 4. To a similar effect is the written statement filed on behalf of respondents Nos.3 and 4.