TIRATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Short controversy that needs adjudication by this Court and that has been raked through present petition filed by Tirath Singh under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is as to whether petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 , even if he had not served Army in any of its fighting wings but was employed as Superintendent (Building & Roads) Grade-I in the services of General Reserve Engineering Force, commonly known as G.R.E.F.

(2.) Concededly, petitioner came to occupy the post of Superintendent (B&R) Grade-I in the service aforesaid on November 2, 1966 from which post he was discharged on October 28, 1970. After his discharge from Army, he successfully applied for service in Punjab Service of Engineering Class-II, PWD, Public Health and was selected and appointed on the post of Sub Divisional Engineer on October 7,1970. He actually joined on November 2,1970. After he came to occupy the post aforesaid, he clamoured for the military service benefits as envisaged under the 1965 Rules. Whereas, he was given the benefits of pay fixation and increments, benefit of seniority was denied to him. However, when his repeated entreaties did not evoke any interest with the authorities to grant him the deemed date of appointment so as to give him seniority, he came to this Court through present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to claim benefit of military service towards seniority in the department where he is presently working.

(3.) The cause of petition has been opposed on the sole ground that the service put in by the petitioner on the post of Superintendent (Building and Roads) Grade I is not a military service as he has not served in any of the three wings of the Army. It is also the case of the respondents that petitioner was not allowed the benefit of seniority as a similarly situate person, who had claimed benefit of seniority through civil suit, was not allowed the said benefit. It is also stated that petitioner for the desired relief relied on a judgment rendered in R.S.A. No.2922 of 1988 decided on October 30, 1995, wherein die benefit was limited to increments and pay fixation.