LAWS(P&H)-1996-10-159

DHARAM RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On October 30, 1996
DHARAM RAJ Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are working as clerks in the Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads Branch). They complain that the Respondent-Department has illegally withheld the benefit of the army service rendered by them towards seniority as admissible under the Punjab Government National Emergency Concession Rules, 1965. The petitioners, consequently, pray for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant them the requisite benefit towards seniority. The facts as admitted by the counsel for the parties may be noticed.

(2.) So far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he had joined the Indian Army on January 13, 1971 and was discharged on September 30, 1972. The remaining three petitioners had joined on January 24, 1963, December 11, 1965 and March 17, 1963 respectively. There were discharged/transferred to reserve on March 19, 1970, August 31, 1969 and July 10, 1968 respectively. Thereafter, all the four petitioners were appointed as clerks on December 6, 1972, September 1, 1971, September 24, 1971 and September 2, 1971 respectively.

(3.) 'Military Service' has been defined under Rule 2 to: mean the service ''rendered by a person during the period of operation of the proclamation of emergency made by the President under Article 352 of the Constitution on the 26th October, 1962....'' It is the admitted position that the proclamation of emergency had continued till January 10, 1968. So far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he had joined the Army on January 13, 1971. Consequently, it is apparent that he is not entitled to the benefit of any military service. This position of law is clearly settled in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Rajender Kumar v. The State of Haryana and others, 1992 102 PunLR 754. So far as the remaining three petitioners are concerned, they have rendered military service and are entitled to the benefit towards the fixation of their seniority. The action of the respondents in not doing the needful was illegal and arbitrary.