GURMAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a bunch of four writ petitions involving similar questions of fact and law. The point in issue is the grant of benefit of military service towards fixation of seniority and pay in the PCS (Executive Branch) with all consequential benefits. The facts are being noticed from CWP No. 3679 of 1995.

(2.) The pleaded facts are that the petitioner is a Released Armed Forces Personnel who was commissioned on 6.9.1970 and was released from the Army on 2.12.1980. The vacancies in the PCS (Executive Branch) Class-I Service became available for direct recruitment from the year 1977 year onwards. By the year 1981, 40 vacancies were available. The benefit of military service was available in terms of Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1972 (for short, 'the 1972 Rules'). The 1972 Rules provided for reservation of 20% of the vacancies in the PCS (Executive Branch) to be filled in by direct recruitment. It also provided for fixation of pay, seniority and other retiral benefits. The 1972 Rules were to have overriding effect notwithstanding anything to be contrary contained in any other Rules. While issuing the advertisement for selection to the vacancies in 1982, the respondents provided reservation for Ex-servicemen at the rate of 15% in terms of the 1982 rules, which had reduced the quota for Ex-servicemen from 20% of the vacancies to 15%. The action of the respondents in applying the 1982 Rules for determining the reserved vacancies existing prior to the coming into force of the 1982 Rules for Ex-servicemen was challenged in this Court. In various writ petitions, namely, CWP Nos. 3674, 4716, 5468, 4859 of 1985 decided on 8.4.1986 (Annexure P-2), the claim of the petitioners therein, which included some of the present petitioners as well, was upheld and it was held that any vacancy arising prior to the repeal of 1972 Rules would be governed by the 1972 Rules and 20% of the vacancies arising upto that date were required to be reserved for Ex-servicemen. The averments made in the writ petition, to the extent that the above referred judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court was upheld upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court, are not denied. In compliance to the judgment, the respondents gave benefit of reservation of 20% of the vacancies and 8 persons in the Ex-servicemen category were appointed. After the appointment, the petitioner submitted a representation claiming that his seniority and pay be fixed in terms of Rule 4 of the 1972 Rules. However, during the pendency of the representation, a tentative seniority list was issued which did not reflect the benefit available to the petitioner in terms of Rule 4 of the 1972 Rules. The petitioner objected to the tentative seniority list. Vide order dated 6.5.1991, the claim made by the petitioner regarding fixation of his seniority in terms of the 1972 Rules was rejected and it was held by the respondents that his claim is to be considered only in terms of 1982 Rules because the appointment of the petitioner was made in the year 1986 when the 1982 Rules in force.

(3.) In the written statement filed, the primary fact regarding the availability of vacancies before the repeal of the 1972 Rules is not denied. There is nothing new except the reiteration of the stand taken in the order rejecting the claim of the petitioners, i.e., on the ground that the petitioner having became member of the service on 18.3.1985, when the 1982 Rules were in force, could not be granted the benefit of the 1972 Rules. It is admitted that the petitioners were given appointment by calculating the vacancies by providing reservation at the rate of 20% thereof in terms of the judgment of this Court. It is further admitted that in total 40 vacancies were existing prior to the coming into force of the 1982 Rules and it was on the basis thereof that 8 persons were selected and appointed by giving 20% reservation.