http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: CHITTARANJAN SINGH CHIMA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/02/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The appellants,  Dalip  Singh  Sidhu  and  Chittaranjan Singh Chima were enrolled in Indian Air Force in December 7, 1957 and September 3, 1959 respectively. After completing 15 years of  service, they  were released  from Army  in  their ranks as Sergeants on January 25, 1974 and December 31, 1974 respectively.  When  recruitment  to  the  posts  of  sports personnel was  advertised, they  came  to  be  appointed  as junior Sports Officers by the Punjab Government on September 30, 1974  and October 29, 1976 respectively. They filed Writ Petition no. 2860/76 in the High Court claiming past service in the Air Force as demobilised army personnel. The Division Bench by  judgment dated  December  9,  1980  following  its earlier judgment  in State  of Punjab  vs. Pritam Chand [LPA No.401 of  1976] dismissed  the writ  petition.  Thus,  this appeal by special leave.      Shri A.P  Mohanty, learned  counsel for the appellants, contended  that   the  Government  had  applied  the  Punjab Demobilized Armed  State Non-Technical  Service) Rules, 1977 dated  April   20,  1977  with  retrospective  effect  dated February 28, 1973. Rule 2 (c) reads as under:      "2(c)     ‘release’ means (with its      grammatical variations)  release as      per the  scheduled year  of release      after a  spell of service, from the      Armed Forces  of the Union but does      not include  release during  or  at      the end of short service Commission      granted to  being taken  in  actual      service or  release on  account  of      misconduct or  inefficiency  or  at      the request  of a  released  Indian      Armed Forces Personnel himself,"      He contends  that the  said rule  has no application to the persons  who were  appointed before  the 1977 Rules came into force.  The High  Court, therefore,  was not  right  in denying  the   benefit  of   the  past   service   and   the consequential benefits  ensured thereunder. The question is: whether the  appellants are entitled to the benefit of their past service rendered in the Military for the computation of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

their  seniority   in  the   civil  service   and  resultant consequential benefits.      The Punjab  Government National Emergency (Concession ) Rules, 1965, the rules under which the appellants came to be appointed, connoted of the definition of "‘military service’ means enrolled  or commissioned  service in any of the three wings of  the Indian  Armed Forces  (including service  as a warrant officer)  rendered by  a person during the period of Operation of  the Proclamation  of  Emergency  made  by  the President under  Article 352 of the Constitution of the 26th October, 1962  or such  other service  as may  hereafter  be declared as  military service  for  the  purposes  of  these rules. Any  period of military training followed by military service shall  also be  reckoned as  military  service."  It would, thus,  be seen  that for  the  purposed  of  military service, it  would be an officer enrolled or commissioned in any of  the three  wings  of  the  Indian  Armed  Force  and rendered service  during the  period  of  operation  of  the proclamation of  emergency and  such of the military service as may  be declared  thereafter by  the Government  for  the purpose  of  the  entitlement  under  the  Rule.  Since  the appellants came  to be  appointed under  this, they have not been given  any benefit of reckoning of the military service for the  purpose of  seniority and consequential benefits in the civil  service. 1968 Rules and 1977 Rules contemplate of giving the  reservation and  also consequential  benefit  of seniority reckoning  the military  service to  such of those officers  who   rendered  service  in  the  military  during emergency with  a view  to encourage  the personnel who come forward to  serve the  country at  the  time  of  emergency. Admittedly, the  appellants came  to be appointed not during the emergency but in the regular process.      This Court in Ram janam Singh vs. State of U.P (1994) 2 SCC 622] to which one of one of us (K. Ramaswamy, J .) was a member, had  held that  preferential treatment  be given  to those who  joined armed  forces during  emergency  and  that grant of notional seniority in civil services by taking into account service rendered in armed forces is constitutionally valid but  such benefit  cannot be  extended  to  those  who joined armed forces during normal times.      The counter-affidavit  filed in  the  High  Court  does indicate that  on at  their own  request they  were released from Indian Army (Air Force) and they are getting pension as pensioner. Under  these circumstances,  they are the regular personnel who  have taken  military service  as a career and after retirement,  they came  to be  appointed in  the quota prescribed for  demobilised military personnel. The question of seniority  of service  rendered in the military cannot be extended to  the personnel  like appellants  since they were not recruited  during  emergency  to  whom  the  benefit  of seniority and  consequential benefits were given. Therefore, the High  Court, though  for different reasons was justified in Court,  though for  different reasons  was  justified  in refusing to grant the relief sought for.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.