http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: DHAYANAND

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/09/1995

BENCH: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, M.K. MUKHERJEE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH              CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8219-20 OF 1995        (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 12116-17 of 1991) Mubarak Masih.,                              V. The Finance Secretary, Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors.,                             AND Writ Petition (C) No. 181 of 1995 Sh. B.P. Singh & Ors.                              V. Union of India & Ors.                       J U D G M E N T J.S. Verma. J.      Special leave granted in special leave petitions.      The only  question for  decision in  these matters is : Whether the  benefit of  earlier qualifying military service as defined  in  the  Punjab  Government  National  Emergency (Concession) Rules,  1965 (hereinafter  referred to as "1965 Rules") could  be given to the concerned employees appointed after 1.11.1966  in the  services of  the Union Territory of Chandigarh except Medical and Health services thereof? If it is held that the benefit of the said rules is available also to the  employees appointed  in the  services of  the  Union Territory of  Chandigarh after  its formation  on  1.11.1966 then the  claim of each of them has to be examined on merits in accordance  with the  rules. The  Central  Administrative Tribunal and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana have taken the view  that these rules do not apply to appointees in the services of  the  Union  Territory  after  1.11.1966.  These matters arise out of these decisions.      The only  material fact  which requires mention is that these matters  relate to  employees in  the services  of the Union Territory  of Chandigarh  all of  whom were  appointed subsequent to  1.11.1966. They  claim benefit  of the Punjab Government National  Emergency (Concession)  Rules, 1965 for the purpose  of increments, seniority, promotion and pension etc. in  accordance with  the rules.  The stand of the Union Territory is that the benefit of the 1965 Rules is available only to  the appointees  prior to  1.11.1966 since they were

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

appointed in  the State  of Punjab  and carry  with them the benefit which  had  already  accrued  to  them.  It  may  be mentioned that  the Union Territory Administration itself by G.O. No.  1023-1H (7)-87/5025  dated 19.3.1987 had taken the view that the benefit of military service in accordance with these rules  would be  available to ex-servicemen who joined service in the various departments in the Union Territory of Chandigarh but  subsequently this  view was  altered in G.O. No. 27/1/3/92-1H (7)/10935 dated 2.6.1992 on reconsideration of the  matter. This  change in  the view  gave rise  to the claims made  by the  concerned employees in the Tribunal and High Court.      In the  context of  applicability of  an administrative order of  the Government  of State of Punjab issued prior to 1.11.1966 it  was held  by this Court in State of Punjab and others Vs.  Balbir Singh  and others, 1976 (3) SCC 242, that by virtue  of Section  88 of  the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, an  administrative order  made by  the erstwhile State did not  automatically lapse  and continued  to be in force, effective and binding on the successor State unless modified and repudiated.  There can  be  no  doubt  that  The  Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 which fall within  the definition of "law" in Section 2 (g) of the Punjab Reorganisation  Act, 1966 continued in force and were effective in  the Union  Territory of  Chandigarh until  and unless  modified,   changed  or   repudiated  by  the  Union Territory  Administration.   The  question,   therefore,  is whether there was any modification, change or repudiation of the said  1965 Rules  by the  Union Territory administration after  1.11.1966?  It  may  be  mentioned  that  the  Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982 repealed the Punjab Government National  Emergency (Concession)  Rules, 1965 but the saving  clause therein  preserved the  rights which  had accrued to  any person  under the  repealed rules.  All  the employees, in  these matters  were appointed after 1.11.1966 but before  the application  of  1982  Rules.  There  is  no controversy that  if the 1965 Rules continued to be in force in the  Union Territory after 1.11.1966 unless repudiated or repealed, the  concerned employees in these matters, subject to fulfillment  of the  conditions of  eligibility under the 1965 Rules,  would be  entitled to its benefit. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether the 1965 Rules were modified, repudiated  or repealed  in their applicability to these employees?      The answer  depends on the construction of Notification Nos. SO 3267, SO 3268 and SO 3269 all dated 1.11.1966 issued by the  Government of  India, Ministry  of Home Affairs, New Delhi. By  Notification No.  SO 3267 the powers conferred by the proviso  to Article  309  of  the  Constitution  on  the President of  India were  delegated to  the Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh to make rules in regard to the matters  specified therein  which included the method of recruitment to  Central Civil  Services and posts (Class II, Class III  and Class IV) under his administrative control in connection with  the  affairs  of  the  Union  Territory  of Chandigarh and conditions of service of persons appointed to such services  and posts  for  the  purposes  of  probation, confirmation, seniority  and promotion.  By Notification No. SO 3268  rules were  framed  by  the  President  called  the Conditions of  Service  of  Union  Territory  of  Chandigarh Employees Rules,  1966 (hereinafter  referred  to  as  "1966 Rules"). Rule  2 therein  provided that  the  conditions  of service of  persons appointed  to the Central Civil Services and posts  Class I,  Class II,  Class III and Class IV under the administrative control of the Administrator of the Union

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Territory of  Chandigarh subject to any other provision made by the  President was  to be  the same  as the Conditions of Service of  Persons appointed to other corresponding Central Civil Services. The remaining part of Rule 2 is not material for the  present purpose.  In short, by virtue of Rule 2 the Rules applicable  to the  Central Civil  Services were  made applicable to  regulate the  conditions of  service for such employees. Rule 3 is significant. It reads as under:      "3.  Rules  not   to  apply  to  matters      relating  to   probation,  confirmation,      seniority and promotion.           Nothing contained  in  these  rules      shall apply  to probation, confirmation,      seniority and  promotion in  respect  of      persons  in   relation   to   whom   the      administrator   of    the   said   union      territory has  been authorised under the      notification of  the Government of India      in the  Ministry  of  Home  Affairs  No.      12/1/66-CHD (I)  dated the 1st November,      1966 to  make rules under the proviso to      article 309 of the Constitution."      Rule 4  contains the  provision for  repeal relating to matters for  which provision  is made  in Rule  2.  The  net result of  these rules contained in Notification No. SO 3268 is that  employees of  the Union Territory to posts in Class II, Class III and Class IV services under the administrative control of  the Administrator  of the  Union  Territory,  in respect of  whom the  rule making power was delegated by the President to  the Administrator  of the Union Territory were not to  be governed  by the  rules contained  in SO  3268 in respect of  matters  relating  to  probation,  confirmation, seniority and  promotion. This is the effect of the combined reading of  the two  notifications and the express provision made in  Rule 3 of the 1966 Rules framed by the President by Notification No.  SO 3268. In other words, by virtue of Rule 3 therein  the 1966  Rules had  no application  to the Union Territory employees  holding posts  in Class  II, Class III, and Class  IV services  in respect of the specified matters. None of  the concerned  employees in these matters belong to Class I  service to  whom alone the Central Civil Rules were made applicable  by Notification  No. SO  3268 in respect of matters relating  to probation,  confirmation, seniority and promotion. The third Notification No. SO 3269 is to the same effect.      It is,  therefore, clear  that  the  Punjab  Government National Emergency  (Concession) Rules,  1965  continued  to apply in  the  Union  Territory  of  Chandigarh  even  after 1.11.1966 till  modified, changed or repudiated by the Union Territory Administration  and they continued to apply to the employees appointed  in the  Union Territory after 1.11.1966 who were eligible for the benefit of those rules. This is so because these  rules relate to matters for which the Central Civil Services  Rules were not applied to employees in Class II, III  & IV posts. The contrary view taken by the Tribunal and the High Court cannot, therefore, be upheld.      Consequently, the  appeals and  the writ  petition  are allowed in  this manner.  The impugned  orders of  the  High Court and  the Tribunal  are set  aside. The  claim  of  the concerned employees in these matters would now be considered and  decided   by  the  Union  Territory  Administration  in accordance with the rules. U.T. Chandigarh                              V. Natha Singh & Ors.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

                          ORDER      Leave granted.      We have decided the connected matters i.e. Civil Appeal No. ........... of 1995 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 16536 of 1992), Dhayanand  vs. Union  of India  & Ors.,  [with  Civil Appeal Nos.  ............ of  1995 (arising  out of  SLP (C) Nos. 12116-17  of 1991)  and Writ  Petition (C)  No. 181  of 1995] by a separate judgment pronounced today, September 12, 1995. Because  of the  view taken  in the connected matters, this civil appeal is dismissed.