Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2 of 23 duties assigned to him and was getting the pay of Tehsildar. Hence, the period of training is liable to be counted as qualifying for pension. Petitioner further claimed that Punjab Tehsildari Rules 1932 were repealed by Rules of 1988. He claims that under the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 his entire service in the military is to be treated as qualifying for pension under Rule 4. It is further stated that Haryana Government has amended the definition of military service in Rule 2 of the above mentioned rules vide notification dated 9.8.1976 and restricted the benefit of military service upto 10.1.1968. Therefore, the respondents counted the military service of the petitioner from 29.4.1963 to 10.1.1968 for the purpose of seniority and pension vide order dated 11.12.1978 and his date of appointment as Tehsildar was fixed as 27.5.1973 after allowing only one year benefit of military service. Arrears were paid w.e.f. 8.2.1978 and not before that. Said notification dated 9.8.1976 was declared ultra vires in CWP No.6436-37 of 1980 titled Ex.Captain K.C. Arora and another vs. State of Haryana and others AIR 1987 SC 1858. Petitioner further claims that his service in GREF was paramilitary service. It was declared integral part of Armed Forces by the President of India vide letter dated 14.8.1985. Therefore, his service rendered in GREF is also to be counted towards grant of pensionary benefits. Even otherwise, under Rule 4.3 of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II, the said service is liable to be counted for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits.

2. Whether the service rendered by the petitioner in GREF from 31.10.1969 to 22.9.1974 is to be computed for the purpose of For Subsequent orders see CM-8252-CWP-2016, CM-14027-CWP-2016, -- and 1 more.

9 of 23 pension and other retiral benefits or not?

Admittedly, the petitioner joined GREF and worked there as such from 31.10.1969 to 22.9.1974. GREF is admittedly, a paramilitary service under the Central Government under the Ministry of Shipping and Transport Border Road Development Board. To determine the nature of service, the petitioner claims that he was selected through Union Public Service Commission for the said post. Letter dated 14.8.1985 (Annexure P5) shows that GREF was treated as integral part of Armed Forces for the purpose of Article 33 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, first of all, GREF was integral part of the Armed Forces and secondaly, the service was under Ministry of Shipping and Transport in the Central Government. The petitioner had joined the service about one year and three months after being relieved from the army. When the petitioner was in service of the GREF, he applied for the Haryana Civil Services and Allied Services and as a result of examination conducted by Haryana Public Service Commission, he was selected as A Class Tehsildar and joined as such on 26.9.1974. He left the service in GREF on 22.9.1974, apparently, on account of his selection as a Tehsildar. Though there is no record available at this stage, that the petitioner had applied through proper channel, presumably, on account of lapse of about 24 years before filing of the writ petition, however, the facts and circumstances indicate that the petitioner had left the service in GREF consequent upon his selection as Tehsildar by the Haryana Public Service Commission. The petitioner had superannuated on 29.2.1996. Therefore, the rules applicable at that time are to be considered. The State Government had issued the instructions dated 22.8.1988 (Annexure P4 with the rejoinder) regarding counting of service for the For Subsequent orders see CM-8252-CWP-2016, CM-14027-CWP-2016, -- and 1 more.

The petitioner was appointed as Tehsildar vide appointment For Subsequent orders see CM-8252-CWP-2016, CM-14027-CWP-2016, -- and 1 more.
19 of 23 letter dated 13.9.1974 when he was posted in GREF and he was selected to the post of Tehsildar on account of his qualifying in Haryana Civil Services Executive Branch and other Services Examination 1972. Admittedly, his selection was against the post meant for ex-servicemen. Petitioner continued to serve the department till 29.2.1996. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had claimed the benefit of seniority and other service benefits on account of his service in military. His certificate of release from the Army as Emergency Commissioned Officer is dated 29.4.1969 (Annexure P1) and discharge certificate from the post of from Civilian Officer Grade II from GREF is dated 27.4.1978 (Annexure P2), showing that he had been released at his own request on 23.9.1974. It is apparent that 3 days later i.e. 26.9.1974 he joined as Tehsildar on account of his appointment letter dated 13.9.1974. When the petitioner claimed the benefits of service rendered in the Army, order Annexure P4 was passed on 11.12.1978. He was allowed the benefit of service rendered by him in Indian Army during National Emergency from 29.4.1963 to 10.1.1968 and his date of appointment as Tehsildar was treated as 27.5.1973. His pay was fixed at Rs.450/- pm in the scale of 320-25-500/30-650/30-800 w.ef. 8.2.1978 i.e. actual date of appointment for the post of Tehsildar, whereas the petitioner had joined on 26.9.1974 and remained in training till 8.2.1978. The petitioner never challenged the order (Annexure P4) during his service. For the first time, he raised such question in interim application in Civil Appeal No.2165 of 1998, arising out of SLP No.12722 of 1995, that too after his retirement. Thereafter, he filed writ petition before this Court as discussed above, which was withdrawn by him in the year 2007. The present writ petition was filed in the year 2008. Therefore, admittedly, there is an inordinate delay and For Subsequent orders see CM-8252-CWP-2016, CM-14027-CWP-2016, -- and 1 more.
20 of 23 latches in approaching the Court, seeking benefit of service rendered in GREF and as Tehsildar and impugning order (Annexure P4).
Now, the question is whether on the ground of delay and latches, the writ petition is required to be dismissed?
I am of the view that the present case is a case of calculations of services of the petitioner. It is exceptional case of injustice done to the petitioner. The above discussion clearly shows that the department acted in an arbitrary manner in denying the benefit of service under the GREF and the benefit of service rendered by the petitioner during training period as a Tehsildar with the result that the full benefit of service rendered by the petitioner during first national emergency was denied to him and his date of appointment in the service was treated to be 27.5.1973, while giving benefit of service rendered during First National Emergency, while considering his date of appointment to post of Tehsildar as 8.2.1978, whereas actually it was 26.9.1974. I am of the view that in ordinary cases, the petition would have been dismissed. However, since the department has committed gross illegality by denying an ex-army man, the proper benefit of his service, therefore, it is an exceptional case of injustice. In such circumstances, as an exceptional case, the Court cannot sit as mute spectator. Therefore, notwithstanding the delay and latches, the petition is not required to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches only, though the petitioner can be declined benefit of arrears of salary and the interest can be restricted to 38 months before the filing of the present writ petition.