S I BHIM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition can appropriately be described as an illustration of litigation which has been forced upon the petitioners because on account of unreasonable attitude of the departmental authorities the petitioners have been compelled to file this writ petition, which is third in the series. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of Annexures P.5 and P.6 whereby the respondents while according promotions to the petitioners have declined to give them monetary benefits.

(2.) The petitioners joined the Indian Army in the years 1963 and 1064 during the National Emergency imposed by the Government of India in the wake of external aggression during the year 1962. They were released from the Army during the years 1968 to 1970. The petitioners were recruited as Constables in the service of the Government of Haryana in the years 1970 and 1972. In lieu of the service rendered by them to the nation during the National Emergency, the petitioners became entitled to be given the benefit of military service for the purposes of seniority, increments and pension etc. in terms of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concessions) Rules, 1965 (for short 'the Rules'). Though the provisions of 1965 Rules are clear, the respondents did not accord those benefits to the petitioners compelling them to file C.W.P. No.3302 of 1989. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of that writ petition on 25.5.1989 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners for grant of benefits under the 1965 Rules. A period of three months was allowed to the respondents to pass necessary orders. Failure of the respondents to comply with the directions given by the High Court on 25.5.1989 led to the issue of notice of demand for justice (Annexure P.3). The petitioners also initiated contempt proceedings but the same did not yield any result. Ultimately, they filed C.W.P. No.13519 of 1990 alleging that only a partial relief had been given to them. The second writ petition of the petitioners was disposed of by this Court on 9.11.1990 and a direction was given to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioners as specified in Annexure P.3 (legal notice) by passing a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of three months. The Court further directed that in case any consequential relief flows to the petitioners as a result of the passing of that order, the same should be granted to them within two months thereafter. Ultimately, the respondents passed orders Annexures P.5 and P.6. By these orders, the petitioners have been given the benefit of retrospective seniority and promotion to higher posts with retrospective effect. However, in these very orders the respondents have declared that the petitioners shall not be entitled to monetary benefit on account of retrospective promotions. Rather, it has been made clear that the benefits towards arrears for increments etc. shall be admissible from the actual date of appointment/promotion.

(3.) Petitioners have contended that after they have been able to persuade this Court to pass orders for implementation of Rules enacted some 20 years ago, now the respondents 'have arbitrarily invoked the principle of 'no work no pay' to deny them the monetary benefits flowing from their retrospective promotions. This action of the respondents, according to the petitioners, is wholly arbitrary, irrational and contrary to the equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.