Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagjit Singh vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation And ... on 19 August, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CWP No. 16269 of 1989 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 16269 of 1989
Reserved on: 17.07.2013
Date of Decision: August 19, 2013
Jagjit Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr. H.S. Virk, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate,
for the respondents.
Mr. K.S. Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioner in the Army as Sepoy/Driver with effect from 23.01.1963 to 18.02.1971 towards present service as driver in the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "P.R.T.C.") and grant all consequential benefits towards seniority, promotion, increments, etc. It is further prayed that order dated 01.08.1989 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent no.3 be Kumar Virender 2013.08.29 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 16269 of 1989 2 quashed whereby claim of the petitioner for military service has been filed and further prayed that order dated 01.04.1975 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Chairman, P.R.T.C., be modified whereby the petitioner has been given re-appointment as a driver.
Brief facts of the case are that at the relevant time the petitioner was serving as a driver (No. S-90) under the respondents - P.R.T.C. Prior to joining the P.R.T.C., the petitioner had served as a Sepoy/Driver in the Army w.e.f. 23.01.1963 to 18.02.1971. Thereafter, he was discharged from the Army having been invalided and boarded out of service by a Board as per Army Rules, 1954. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Driver on 03.07.1973 in the P.R.T.C. The petitioner moved an application dated 11.10.1984 for getting the service benefits of military service. Vide letter dated 01.08.1989 (Annexure P/2), the said application was rejected. It would be pertinent to mention that on 26.02.1974, the petitioner was driving bus, which met with an accident on Sangrur-Partan route. Inspector Bir Bhan, who was travelling in the bus, at the time of accident, had lodged a report with the Depot Manager, P.R.T.C., Sangrur, about the occurrence. Ultimately, as a result of accident, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Against that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal (Annexure P/3). In the said appeal, vide order dated 01.04.1975 (Annexure P/4) the authority took a lenient view and came to the conclusion that instead of dismissal from service the petitioner should be re-appointed as a driver. The relevant part of the order (Annexure P/4) reads as under:-
Kumar Virender2013.08.29 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 16269 of 1989 3
"2. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, and the fact that the appellant had put in 8 years of service in the Army, I feel that the punishment of dismissal was not called for. I, therefore, order that Shri Jagjit Singh, Ex-driver No. S- 90 be re-appointed as a driver."
Hence, this writ petition.
In pursuance to notice of motion, respondents appeared and filed a joint written statement and submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a driver with the P.R.T.C. on 03.07.1973, but on 26.02.1974 while he was driving a bus, the same met with an accident. The vehicle turned turtle and was badly damaged causing loss of Rs.80,000/-. At that time, the petitioner was working on temporary basis and after the accident, his appointment was not extended further vide office order dated 02.03.1974 and services of the petitioner were terminated. Against that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was rejected by the General Manager of P.R.T.C. on 16.07.1974. However, subsequently, the case was called by the Secretary Transport, Punjab, Chandigarh vide letter dated 02.08.1974. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was considered by the Government and vide letter dated 13.03.1975, and Chairman of the Corporation was directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner. In pursuance of that, order dated 01.04.1975 (Annexure P/4) has been passed and the petitioner was ordered to be re-appointed. Order (Annexure P/4) has been challenged by the petitioner after a delay of more than 14 years. As such, question of modification of that order does not arise. It is further submitted that the petitioner has claimed the benefits of military service as Kumar Virender 2013.08.29 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 16269 of 1989 4 per Rule 4(i) of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 (hereafter referred to as the `1965 Rules'). Rule 4(i) of 1965 Rules reads as under:-
"4. Increments, Seniority and Pension:
Period of Military Service shall count for increment, seniority and pension as under:-
(i) Increments: The period spent by a person on Military Service after attaining the minimum age prescribed for appointment to any service or post, to which he is appointed, shall count for increments. Where no such minimum age is prescribed the minimum age shall be laid down in Rules 3.9,
3.10 and 3.11 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. This concession shall, however, be admissible only to first appointment."
From the perusal of the aforesaid Rule, it is clear that the benefit of Military Service is admissible only on the first appointment. If the petitioner would have continued in service in pursuance of the initial appointment, then the case of the petitioner could have been considered for counting the military service. However, the petitioner has been re- appointed, meaning thereby that this is a second appointment after the dismissal. The case of the petitioner was rejected on 01.08.1989 (Annexure P/2). Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had initially joined as Driver in the P.R.T.C. on Kumar Virender 2013.08.29 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 16269 of 1989 5 03.07.1973, but he was dismissed from service. Appeal preferred before the General Manager was also dismissed. However, the Government directed the Chairman of P.R.T.C. to reconsider the case of the petitioner. Instead of giving the benefit of continuity of service, the petitioner has been re-appointed which is illegal and arbitrary. Since the petitioner has rendered service in the Army which is not in dispute, the same is required to be considered for all the benefits including increment, seniority, etc. The re-employment does not bar the same. There is no delay in filing the present writ petition. The petitioner continued into service.
Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that order (Annexure P/4) has been challenged after more than 14 years. The petitioner remained silent and accepted the order. The petitioner had earlier got the appointment and thereafter his services were terminated. The competent authority had not allowed the appeal of the petitioner, but subsequently on the recommendation of the Government, case of the petitioner was reconsidered and he has been given re-employment without giving the benefit of the past service. The re-employment is a second employment, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits specifically in view of 1965 Rules.
I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.
Admittedly, the petitioner rendered service as a Sepoy/Driver w.e.f. 23.01.1963 to 18.02.1971 in the Army. Thereafter, he was employed Kumar Virender 2013.08.29 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 16269 of 1989 6 as a Driver with the respondent - Corporation w.e.f. 03.07.1973. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 02.03.1974 less than a year of appointment. Appeal preferred was also dismissed. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was reconsidered by the Government and he has been given re-appointment vide order dated 01.04.1975 (Annexure P/4). The petitioner accepted the said order. The earlier period of the petitioner was w.e.f. 03.07.1973 to 02.03.1974 meaning thereby, he was just on probation during that period. As such, the petitioner did not file the writ petition at that point of time. So far as the prayer for modification of the order (Annexure P/4) is concerned, the same is barred by the principles of delay and laches and the same cannot be modified.
Now the question arises as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the military service.
This Court is of the view that the petitioner had got the first appointment by joining on 03.07.1973. Thereafter, his services were terminated and he has been given re-employment in pursuance of order (Annexure P/4). As such, re-appointment is a second appointment in view of Rule 4 of 1965 Rules which specifically stipulates that the benefit of the military service is only available on the first appointment to the ex- servicemen and the same is not available on the appointment made subsequently.
In view of the specific provisions referred to herein above, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to counting the service rendered by the petitioner in Kumar Virender 2013.08.29 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 16269 of 1989 7 the Army.
In view of the above discussion, present writ petition is dismissed.
August 19, 2013 [ Paramjeet Singh ]
vkd Judge
Kumar Virender
2013.08.29 12:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document