BHAGWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner retired from the Education Department of the State of Punjab on 30.11.1997 on voluntary retirement as a Social Studies Master. He was recruited into the Punjab service on 20.3.1972. Earlier the petitioner was discharged from army on 18.2.1966 after serving for a period of about two years i.e. w.e.f. 6.3.1964 till his discharge on 18.2.1966. The petitioner had joined the Indian Army during the period of Emergency. It is admitted position that the Emergency period remained from 26.10.1962 to 10.1.1968. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of Mandamus to count the military service rendered by the petitioner for purpose of increments, seniority and pension. The claim of the petitioner for addition of military service rendered by him for purposes of the aforesaid benefits in Civil Services has been denied on the ground that the gap between the discharge from army and joining of the civil service is more than five years. Reliance is placed upon Rule 4 of the Punjab Govt. National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965. The said rule reads as under :-

(2.) The stand of the State in the reply is also based upon the interpretation of Rule 4 (3). From the bare reading of the aforesaid provision quoted herein above, it appears that the stand of the State is totally unwarranted. Rule 4 (1) confers the benefit upon an ex-army personnel for counting the period of army service rendered during the emergency for purposes of counting increments, seniority and pension provided such army personnel refunds the bonus, gratuity received in respect of military service to the State Govt. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 confers an additional benefit of taking into consideration even the period between the discharge of the army personnel and the date of joining of service provided the gap is upto one year and in special circumstances for three years. Sub-rule (3) does not control the sub- rule (1). It is only an additional benefit even for the period the ex-army personnel remained out of service upto one year without any special circumstances and upto three years with special circumstances. Sub-rule (3) of rule 4 does not in any manner take away the benefit confirmed under Rule 1, which is absolute in nature. Thus, the stand of the respondents to deny the benefit of service rendered in army during the period of emergency is based upon total misinterpretation and misconstruction of rule 4(3). In the present case the gap between discharge from service and rejoining of civil service is more than five years. The petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit of this period, however, he is entitled to the benefits for the service rendered between 6.3.1964 to 18.2.1966 to be counted for purposes of increments, seniority and pension. I am also persuaded to take this view by a judgement of this Court dated 6.7.1999 passed in CWP No. 7254 of 1998.