Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Malkiat Singh); Lpa No.307 Of 1997 ... on 9 October, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A.No.1312-CH-2012 Order pronounced on: 18-10-2012
Order reserved on : 09.10.2012
CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND, MEMBER (J) AND
HONBLE MR. RANBIR SINGH, MEMBER (A)
DEVINDER KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O SITA RAM, CONDUCTOR NO.585, CTU DEPOT NO.3, CHANDIGARH.
Applicant
By: Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate.
1. U.T.ADMINISTRATION THROUGH ITS ADVISOR, U.T. CHANDIGARH.
2. DIRECTOR TRANSPORT, U.T. CHANDIGARH.
3. GENERAL MANAGER, C.T.U. CHANDIGARH.
By: Mr. Aseem Rai, Advocate.
Respondents
O R D E R
HONBLE RANBIR SINGH , MEMBER (A) As per the O.A., the applicant had worked in the Indian Army from 27.10.1972 through 2.2.1983. Thereafter, he had joined the respondent organization as a regular conductor on 24.7.1985. The relief sought in this O.A. is as under:-
i) The applicant prays for counting of the service in respect of the service rendered by him in the Army during the Second national emergency declared between 03.12.1971 to 25.03.1977 w.e.f. 27.10.1972 to 02.02.1983 for the purpose of seniority with all consequential benefits.
2. The claim of the applicant is based upon the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982. The applicant had last come to this Tribunal in O.A.No.152-CH-2000 in which he had claimed the benefit of military service, particularly increments of pay and arrears. The O.A.was disposed of on 27.5.2002, directing the respondents to dispose of the applicants representation dated 7.7.1994. The representation was rejected vide order dated 1.11.2002 of the Divisional Manager and Director Transport. The applicant had also issued a legal notice dated 15.1.2010 claiming various benefits under the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982. In the O.A. reliance has been placed on order dated 8.3.2010 of this Tribunal in O.A.No. 155-PB02010, O.A.No.156-CH-2010, O.A.No.159-CH-2010 and O.A.No.160-CH-2010 and order dated 20.7.2011 of this Tribunal passed in O.A.No.921-CH-2010, 924-PB-2010, O.A.No.925-PB-2010, O.A.No.926-PB-2010 and O.A.No.444-CH-2011.
3. The applicant has also filed an M.A.No. 286/12 for placing on record additional record including copy of judgment dated 27.8.2010 in LPA No.306/1997 (The State of Punjab and Others Vs. Malkiat Singh); LPA No.307 of 1997 (State of Punjab and another Vs. Joginder Singh), LPA No.308 of 1997 (State of Punjab and another Vs. Upkar Singh Dhillon), L.P.A.No.309 of 1997 (State of Punjab and Another Vs. Daljit Singh), L.P.A.No.310 of 1997 (State of Punjab and Others Vs. Manjit Singh Kahlon), L.P.A.No.311 of 1997 (State of Punjab and Another Vs.Gurbachan Singh), L.P.A.no.312 of 1997 (State of Punjab and Another Vs. Sona Ram), L.P.A.no.313 of 1997 (State of Punjab and Another Vs. Santokh Singh), L.P.A.No.314 of 1997 (State of Punjab and Another Vs. Naginder Singh), L.P.A.No.315 of 1997 (State of Punjab and another Vs. Bishan Singh).
4. The respondents have filed a common reply statement in which it has been admitted that the applicant had served in the Indian Army from 27.10.1972 through 2.2.1983 and joined respondent department as a conductor in 1985. He is governed by the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982 which was amended in 2004 and 2009. The grant of benefit of seniority for the period of service in the Army is not included in these rules. (However, grant of seniority of military service rendered during first National Emergency was available as per Punjab Ex-serviceman Rules, 1965). The respondents have contended that the applicant has not challenged vires of rules of 1982 and / or the amendment made in 2004/2009. He has not impleaded the State of Punjab who have framed the said Rules and, therefore, would not be able to defend the same.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.
6. Admittedly, the benefit of increments and pension admissible under the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982 have been given to the applicant and the only prayer of the applicant is for seniority, on the basis of service rendered in the Military. It is not in dispute that the rules applicable to case of the applicant are the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982. The said rules provide for the benefit of increments and pension. There is no provision in the rules for counting military service towards seniority.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that rule (9), sub-rule (3) is applicable to him. The said sub-rule is extracted below:-
Nothing in these rules shall be constructed as depriving any person to whom these rules apply of any right which had accrued to him under the rules, notifications or order sin force immediately before the commencement of these rules.
However, the applicant cannot claim benefit from this because the following rules which were in force immediately before the commencement of the 1982 Rules were not applicable to the applicant since they would apply only to those who had served in the military between 26.10.1962 through 10.1.1968:
1. The Punjab Government National Emergency (Concessions) Rules, 1965.
2. The Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of vacancies in the Punjab State Non Technical Services) Rules, 1968;
3. The Demobilized Indian Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Punjab Civil Services, Executive Branch) Rules, 1972.
4. The Released Indian Armed Forces Personnel (Determination of Eligibility for promotion) Rules, 1977.
8. We may now refer to the case law from which the applicant claims benefit. The learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the decision in O.A.No. 832-CH-2010, Davinder Bakshi Vs. Chandigarh Administration & Others decided on 20.10.2011. The applicant in that case had claimed benefit as was given to one Shamsher Singh claiming him similarly circumstanced. The averment of the applicant was not controverted by the respondents. Therefore, this Tribunal had ordered the extension of benefit to the applicant as given to similarly circumstanced official. In the instant case the relevant averments of the applicant have been denied by the respondents.
9. In O.A.No.921-CH-2010, 924-PB-2010, O.A.No.925-PB-2010, O.A.No.926-PB-2010 and O.A.No.444-CH-2011, the issue for adjudication was the date of joining of the military service. Directions were issued to the respondents to extend the benefit of pension and increments to the applicants therein in terms of the Rules of 1965 and 1982, as the case may be. The issue is different in the instant case.
10. Similarly, in LPA No.306/1997 (The State of Punjab and Others Vs. Malkiat Singh); LPA No.307 of 1997 (State of Punjab and another Vs. Joginder Singh), LPA No.308 of 1997 (State of Punjab and another Vs. Upkar Singh Dhillon), L.P.A.No.309 of 1997 (State of Punjab and Another Vs. Daljit Singh), L.P.A.No.310 of 1997 (State of Punjab and Others Vs. Manjit Singh Kahlon), L.P.A.No.311 of 1997 (State of Punjab and Another Vs. Gurbachan Singh), L.P.A.no.312 of 1997 (State of Punjab and Another Vs. Sona Ram), L.P.A.no.313 of 1997 (State of Punjab and Another Vs. Santokh Singh), L.P.A.No.314 of 1997 (State of Punjab and Another Vs. Naginder Singh), L.P.A.No.315 of 1997 (State of Punjab and another Vs. Bishan Singh), the issue was the date of joining Armed Forces for claiming benefits under the rules in respect of three categories of cases pending before the Honble Supreme Court. In the instant case the issue is different.
11. In O.A. No.155-PB-2010, O.A.No.156-CH-2010, O.A.No.159-CH-2010 and O.A.No.160-CH-2010 and order dated 20.7.2011 of this Tribunal passed in O.A.No.921-CH-2010, 924-PB-2010, O.A.No.925-PB-2010, O.A.No.926-PB-2010 and O.A.No.444-CH-2011, a direction was issued to the respondents to examine the case of the applicant in the light of notification dated 15.10.2009 and 18.2.2010. The point for consideration in the instant case is different.
12. Thus, the applicant cannot claim benefit from the case law relied upon by him. This case is covered by the Punjab Ex-serviceman Rules, 1982, which does not provide for the benefit of seniority. Therefore, finding no merit, this O.A. is dismissed. No costs.
(RANBIR SINGH) MEMBER(A) (JUSTICE S.D. ANAND) MEMBER (J) Place: Chandigarh Dated: 18-10-2012 HC* 1 O.A.NO.1312-CH-2011