LABH SINGH CHAHIL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, for the military service rendered by him, has concededly been given benefit in increment and seniority to the post that he came to occupy after discharge from military. He has, however, been denied benefit of military service while counting his pension. It is for this claim, i. e. , counting military service for the purposes of pension that the present petition has been filed. 2. The matter herein has been opposed on the sole ground that Rule 4 (iii) of the Punjab Govt.

(2.) National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 would come in the way of petitioner in granting him the desired relief. Relevant portion of the rule aforesaid reads thus :-

(3.) The period, if any, between the date of discharge from military service and the date of appointment to any service or post under the Government shall count for pension, provided such period does not exceed one year. Any period exceeding one year but not exceeding three years may also be allowed to count for pension in exceptional cases under the orders of the Government". 3. Question as to whether a discharged military personnel is entitled to count the years of service rendered by him in military service for the purposes of pension, came to be focused by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 518 of 1998, Master Santokh Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. , in terms of Rule 4 (iii), quoted above. The Division Bench in its judgment dated March 25, 1998 held that "the petitioner in the present case is only claiming benefit of military service rendered by him during emergency for the purpose of pension and not the period between the discharge from the Armed Forces and his joining the civil service. With respect, we are not in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Munsha Singh's case (supra ). The benefit under Rule 4 (iii) of 1965 Rules is an additional benefit to an incumbent who rendered military service during emergency and joined the civil service within a year of the discharge from the Armed Forces". Learned State counsel could not distinguish the judgment aforesaid nor could show a judgment taking a contrary view. Mr. Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that the same view has been taken by Division Bench of this Court in Dev Dutt v. State of Punjab, 1996 (7) SLR 807 and yet another judgment in Maclan Lal v. State of Punjab, 1998 (1) RSJ 439.