Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Punjab State And Others vs Gurbax Singh on 30 January, 2009
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
R.S.A. No. 561 of 2005
Date of Decision: 30.1.2009
The Punjab State and others.
....... Appellants through Shri
Ajaib Singh, Additional
Advocate General, Punjab.
Versus
Gurbax Singh.
....... Respondent through Shri
R.D.Bawa, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
....
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
....
Mahesh Grover,J.
This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 5.4.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar (hereinafter described as `the First Appellate Court') vide which the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent filed against judgment and decree dated 5.9.2003 of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') was allowed in part by holding that he was entitled for counting his military service during the period of emergency only towards the fixation of pay, increments,seniority, and proficiency step ups.
The respondent, who had served the Army, claimed the benefit R.S.A.No.561 of 2005 -2- ....
of military service towards his civil service where he had joined as Laboratory Attendant on 11.9.1980 on a post reserved for ex-servicemen through Employment Exchange, which post, later on, was re-designated as Senior Laboratory Attendant and its category was changed from Class-IV to Class-III. According to him, he was enrolled in the Army on 22.3.1960 and was discharged w.e.f. 23.11.1977 and thus, served during both the emergencies, i.e. the first from 26.12.1962 to 10.1.1968 and the second from 3.12.1971 to 3.7.1977. He claimed that he was entitled to the benefits as admissible under the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules,1965 (for short, `the Rules'). It was pleaded by him that according to the Rules, the defence personnel who rendered service during the emergency period and who were appointed to civil service before 11.2.1982, are entitled to pay fixation, increments, seniority, proficiency step ups after counting the military service rendered by them. Since the claim of the respondent was not accepted by the appellants, he was constrained to file the suit.
The appellants had contested the claim of the appellant and pleaded that since he had joined the military as a career and not in response to the call of the emergency, therefore, he was not entitled to any benefit under the Rules.
Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the benefit of military R.S.A.No.561 of 2005 -3- ....
service towards his civil services from 22.3.60 to 23.11.1977?OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the general provident fund along with GPF, bonus and interest?OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP
5. Relief.
The trial Court took up all the issues together for consideration and decided issue nos. 1, 3 & 4 partly in favour of the respondent, whereas issue no.2 was decided against him. In the result, the suit was decreed to the limited extent that the appellant was held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the delayed payment of G.P.Fund amount for a period of seven months only and the rest of his claim was declined.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal which was allowed by the First Appellate Court in part in the manner noticed hereinabove.
Hence, this appeal by the State of Punjab and its functionaries. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the benefits could not have been awarded to the respondent as he had joined the Army as a career and not on the call during the emergencies. To support his contention, he placed reliance on Chittaranjan Singh Chima Versus State of Punjab, 1997(11) S.C.C. 447.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Jang Singh and others R.S.A.No.561 of 2005 -4- ....
Versus State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) R.S.J. 464, to contend that the benefits were limited only to the period of emergencies during which the respondent had served and that the Full Bench had also considered the judgment of the Apex Court in Chittaranjan Singh Chima's case (supra) while granting such relief to the petitioners therein.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion that the matter is squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment in Jang Singh and others (supra), wherein in paragraph 11, it was held as under:-
"11. The expressionis in the latter part of Rule 2 must be read ejus dem generis, to the earlier part of the Rule. Both these expressions in the Rule must be construed harmoniously so as to give a meaning to the rule which would be in consonance with the legislative intent rather than the one which would defeat the very purpose of the Rules. The distinction between the persons who formed two distinct classes, i.e., those who joined the Army during emergency and those who joined the Army prior thereto, would be a permissible differentiation entitling them to the benefit of different set of Rules for the larger or the smaller benefit. It could be said that the persons who joined the Army service during emergency would be entitled to the benefit of service i.e. the entire service while the persons like petitioners who opted for Army as a career would be entitled to the benefit of the emergency period alone within R.S.A.No.561 of 2005 -5- ....
the limited scope of the aforesaid Rules."
After noticing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chitranjan Singh Chima's case (supra), the Full Bench went on to grant the following relief to the petitioners therein as under:-
"In our considered view, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Rule 4 limited to the extent of increments as all the petitioners have already retired. Each of the petitioners is entitled to the increments in accordance with Rules for the period of the service rendered by them during the proclamation of emergency in the country. The respondents are directed to compute the benefits in accordance with the above observations for the purposes of adding the increments which the petitioners would have been entitled to and for consequential benefits in terms of pension, if granted on such increment affects their petition."
In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench, this appeal is totally devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. Simultaneously, it is directed that the the period of military service rendered by the respondent during both the emergencies shall be counted towards grant of increments and for consequential benefits in terms of pension as he has already retired from civil service.
January 30,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) "SCM" Judge