http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SURJIT SINGH BRAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/11/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the  learned single  judge of  the High Court of Punjab & Haryana made on October 7, 1993 in RSA No, 896/93.      The admitted  facts are  that the respondent had joined military service  after the  declaration of Indio-china War. emergency was  declared on  October 26, 1962. The respondent joined the  Army on  May 25,  1963. The Government of Punjab exercising the  power under  proviso  the Article 309 of the Constitution passed the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 (for short, the ’Rules’). The Rules provided for  benefit of  pay and seniority to ex-servicemen re-employed in civil services. the respondent was discharged from military service on September 24, 1973 and there after, he was appointed in January, 1979 as L.D.C. in ex-servicemen quota. He  was granted  the benefit  of the  increments  and seniority  in   terms  of  Rules  2  and  4  of  the  Rules, Subsequently, realising the mistake that he was not entitled to two    increments  after  the  Indo-China  Emergency  was lifted, the  same was  recalled by  order  dated  21.4.1987. After issuing  the notice,  they  withdraw  the  benefit  on February 18,  1988. Calling in  question, the said action of the appellants,  the respondent  filed a civil suit on April 27, 1988. It may be relevant, at this juncture, to note that during Indo-Bangla  War, the  Government  had  declared  the Emergency of  December 3, 1971 which was lifted on March 22, 1973. Consequently,  the respondent  has claimed the benefit of seniority  and pay  for the  period of  service  rendered during the  period of  second  Emergency.  The  trial  Court dismissed the  suit but  on appeal  the Additional  District Judge allowed  the appeal  and decreed  the suit and granted the benefit of two increments. When second appeal was filed, the High  Court dismissed  the same.  Thus, this  appeal  by special leave.      The contention  raised by  the learned  counsel for the appellant  is  that  under  the  Rules,  the  personnel  who rendered the military service during Emergency of Indo-China was alone  is entitled to the benefit. Though the respondent

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

continued after  the lifting  of  the  first  Emergency  and during the  period of second Emergency, namely, Indo-Bangala War, the  period of  aid service  would not be counted under the Rules.  we find  force in the contention. This question, in the  first instance,  was considered  by  this  Court  in (Ex.Capt.) Randhir  Singh  Dhull  vs.  S.D.  Bhambri  &  Or. [(1968) LAB.  IC  894]  wherein  this  Court  extracted  the definition of the military service which reads as under:      "Definition:  For  the  purpose  of      these  rules,  expression  military      service,    means    enrolled    or      commissioned service  in any of the      three wings  of  the  Indian  Armed      Force  (including   services  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 on  the 26th  October,      1962, or  such other service as may      hereafter ba  declared as  military      service for  the purpose  of  these      rules.  Any   period  of   military      training   followed   by   military      service shall  also be  reckoned as      military service."      "4.   Increments,   seniority   and      pension, Period of military service      shall   count    for    increments,      seniority and pension as under:-      (i) Increment-  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      as is  prescribed the  minimum  age      shall be as 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     on     first      appointment."      This Court  had held  that the words emphasised clearly showed that  it is  only the  service  rendered  during  the period of Emergency that would be taken into account and not any other  period. No  doubt, there  is also  provision  for other service  being declared  as military  service, but  no order of  the Government  making such  declaration has  been brought to  out notice.  Thus, it  could be  seen that  this Court has  settled that  the military  service would  be the service rendered  during the first Emergency unless there is any further  declaration under  the Rules given by the State covering the second Emergency.  The personnel who joined the service during the period to first Emergency is not entitled to claim  the benefit  of the  period  of  service  rendered during the  second Emergency.  The learned  counsel for  the respondent placed  reliance on  the Circular  Letter No. 325 (SII (3)  - 72 of 5866 dated February 24, 1972 and contended that the  Government of  India in  paragraph 2  thereof, has issued  the   benefit  of  military  service  to  those  who continued under the first Emergency. The State Government is paragraph 3,  have  also  extended  the  same  benefit  and,

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

therefore,  the   respondent  is  entitled  to  the  benefit thereof. We  find that there is not force in the contention. Para 2  thereof relates  to the  Central Government Servants who have joined the military service during second emergency and continued  thereafter became  entitled to  the  benefit. Admittedly, the  respondent  is  not  a  Central  Government Servant and,  therefore, para  2 thereof has no application. Para 3  in Government Service before he jointed the military service which reads as under:      "  The   Punjab   Government   have      decided that  the civil  Government      employees who  are/have been called      for  military  service  during  the      present Emergency shall be eligible      to the  concessions enjoined in the      Punjab     Government      National      Emergency (concessions) Rules, 1965      read  with  the  Demobilised  Armed      Forces  Personnel  (Reservation  of      Vacancies  in   the   punjab   Non-      technical service) Rules, 1968."      A reading  thereof clearly indicated that the candidate must be  a government  servant having  been called  for  the military  service   during  the   second   Emergency;   such Government servant  shall be  eligible  to  the  concessions enjoined  in   the  Punjab   government  National  Emergency (Concessions) Rule,  1965 read  with the  Demobilised  Armed Forces Personnel  (Reservation of  vacancies in  the  Punjab Non-Technical   Service)    Rules,   1968.    Under    these circumstances,  the   respondent  is  not  entitled  to  two increment which were wrongly given and rightly withdrawn.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  orders of the High court  and the  District Judges stand set aside and the suit of the respondent stand dismissed. No costs.