http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHARANJI LAL GOAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/10/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal by special leave arise from the judgment of the Punjab  and Haryana  High Court made on July 27, 1979 in Writ Petition No.3450 of 1979.      Undisputed facts  are that the respondent had initially joined  as  Sub-Inspector  with  Professional  Tax  (Finance Department) on  November 7,  1962. During  emergency, he had joined as  Commissioned Officer  in the  Army on October 26, 1963 and  was released  from the Army on September 18, 1969. Subsequently, as  he as  released Army personnel had applied for and  was selected  as Taxation  Inspector and joined the services on  January 29,  1970. He  was given the benefit of seniority w.e.f.  October 26,  1963, the  date on  which  he joined the  Army as  Commissioned  Officer.  Later  on,  for direct recruitment  for the post of Assistant Excise and Tax Officer, when was published by the Public Commission, he had appeared for  and was  selected in  1972 as Assistant Excise and Tax Officer. He took the stand in the writ petition Rule 4(II)  of   the   Punjab   Government   National   Emergency (Concession  Rules),   1965  (hereinafter   referred  to  as ’Rules’) would  be applicable  to him  and  the  High  Court directed to  give him  seniority from  October 26,  1963 and consider him  with all  consequential benefits.  Thus,  this appeal by special leave.      The  only   question  is:  whether  the  respondent  is entitled to  the benefit  of seniority from October 26, 1963 for the  second time, when he had already joined as Taxation Inspector on January 29, 1970 and had availed the benefit of the previous  service.  Further  when  subsequently  he  was appointed as  Assistant  Excise  and  Tax  Officer  in  1972 whether Rule 4 would apply which reads thus:      Increments, seniority and pension:      Period of  military  service  shall      count for increments, 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

    appointed,    shall    count    for      increments. Where  no such  minimum      age 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.      (ii)  Seniority:-   The  period  of      military   service   mentioned   in      clause  (1)  shall  be  taken  into      consideration for  the  purpose  of      determining  the   seniority  of  a      person who  has  rendered  military      service.      (iii) xxx xxx xxx      (1)   xxx xxx xxx      (2)   xxx xxx xxx      (3)   xxx xxx xxx      5. Seniority,  promotion, increment      pension  and  leave  of  Government      employees:-      The  period   spent   on   military      service by  a  Government  employee      shall    count     for    seniority      promotion, increment and pension in      the service  or post  held  by  him      immediately  before   his   joining      military   service.   A   permanent      Government  employee   who  renders      military service,  shall earn leave      during such  service  according  to      the leave  rules applicable  to him      immediately  before   his   joining      military   service.   A   temporary      Government  employee  shall  during      military rules in all respects. The      employee   concerned    shall    be      entitled to  proforma promotion  in      his  parent  department  under  the      ’next  below’   rule  and  also  to      seniority in  higher posts to which      he  would   otherwise   have   been      entitled  if   he  had  not  joined      military service."      A  reading   of  these   Rules  and  Punjab  Government Memorandum dated  February 28,  1973 would  clearly indicate that the  period of military service mentioned in clause (i) namely the period spend by the personnel on military service after attaining  the minimum  age  for  appointment  to  any service or post to which he is appointed shall count for his promotion for  seniority as far the rules 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II.      Rule 5 of the Rules indicates that seniority promotion, increment, pension  and leave of Government employee will be available to  any Government  employee who  had  already  in service of  the State Government but subsequently joined the military service.  The entire  period spent  in the military service will  be tagged  for the  purpose of  his seniority, promotion, increment,  pension and  leave of  the Government employee.      The  question   then  is:  whether  the  respondent  is entitled to  both the  benefits? It  is seen that though the respondent had  joined the  State Services as Assistant Sub-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Inspector (Professional  Tax) Finance Department on November 7, 1962,  later he  joined military  service on  October 26, 1963. He  did not  join, after release from the army, in the post as  Sub-lnspector (Professional Tax) Fiance Department. Resultantly, Rule 5 has no application in that behalf. After his release  from the  Army on  September 19,  1969, he  had applied for  and was  selected  as  Taxation  Inspector  and joined the  services on  January 29, 1970. As a consequence, he was  given the benefit of seniority under Rule 4(II) from October 26, 1963. While he was continuing in service, Direct Recruitment was  advertised  for  appointment  as  Assistant Excise and Tax Officer. He had applied for and was selected, he was  appointed as  Assistant Excise  and Tax  officer  in 1972. As  he had  already availed  of the benefit of tagging his services as Taxation Inspector and the services rendered in the  Military as a Taxation Officer from October 26, 1963 to September 19, 1969, he is not eligible to again claim for tagging the  same period  when it  was directly recruited as Assistant Excise  and  Tax  Officer  since  he  has  already availed  the  benefit  and  benefit  stood  exhausted.  This question was considered by this Court in S.B.Dogra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. [(1992) 4 SCC 455 at page 461. This Court had held thus:      "The two  petitioners in  that case      had served the Indian Army for more      than five  years before they joined      the Haryana Government as Assistant      Engineers  against  posts  reserved      for    ex-emergency    Commissioned      Officers. The  Government of Punjab      had before  the  formation  of  the      State  of  Haryana  made  statutory      rules  under  Article  309  of  the      Constitution  called   the   Punjab      National   Emergency   (Concession)      Rules,   1965.   Rule   2   defined      ’military service’  to  inter  alia      mean   enrolled   or   commissioned      service in  any of  the three wings      of the Indian Armed Forces rendered      by a  person "during  the period of      operation of  the  proclamation  of      emergency" made by the President on      October 26,  1962. Rule  3 provided      for   the    relaxation   of    the      requirements     of     age     and      qualification with which we are not      concerned in the present case. Rule      4(ii) which  is  relevant  for  our      purpose provided thus:      "4.(ii) Seniority  ; The  period of      military   service   mentioned   in      clause  (i)  shall  be  taken  into      consideration for  the  purpose  of      determining  the   seniority  of  a      person who  has  rendered  military      service."      This   concession   was,   however,      admissible  on   first  appointment      only. Rule  5 further provided that      the  period   spent   on   military      service shall  count for seniority.      promotion, increment and pension in      the service  or post  held  by  him      immediately  before   his   joining

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

    military  service.   Thus  the  two      petitioners became entitled to have      their seniority  fixed according to      the   above    rules    on    their      appointment as Assistant Engineers.      However,   the    gradation    list      prepared by  the Government did not      reflect  the  benefit  of  military      service    weightage     as     per      theserules.         The         two      petitionersalleged that  the  State      of Haryana  with a view to deny the      benefit to  them amended  the rules      retrospectively and added a proviso      as under:      "Provided that  a  person  who  has      availed of  concession  under  sub-      rule (3)  of Rule  3 shall  not  be      entitled to  the  concession  under      this clause."      By  notification  dated  August  9,      1976, the  definition of  ’military      service’    was    amended    which      amendment was challenged along with      other grievances in the High Court.      However, both  the  writ  petitions      were dismissed  which gave  rise to      the appeal,  the judgment  in which      case wasrelied  on by the Tribunal.      The core  question which  arose for      consideration  by  this  Court  was      whether  the   amended   rule   was      constitutionally valid  even though      it             was             made      applicableretrospectively which had      the effect  of taking  away  vested      rights. This  Court struck down the      amended Rule  4(ii) as  well as the      notification    by     which    the      definition   of    the   expression      ’military service’  was altered. It      will  thus   be   seen   that   the      essential    question    was    not      regarding the  actual  fixation  of      seniority.  The   note  below   the      advertisement and  the language  of      the  unamended  definition  of  the      expression ’military  service’ read      with Rule  (ii) made  it clear that      the service  referred t was the one      rendered  during   the  period   of      operation of  the  proclamation  of      emergency  made  by  the  President      under   Article    352    of    the      Constitution on  October 26,  1962.      It will become immediately apparent      on a  mere comparison  of the  1965      Punjab  Rules,   particularly   the      definition clause  read  with  Rule      4(ii). with  Rule 5(1)  of the 1972      Rules that  the language of the two      rules is  not identical  and  while      the  former  limits  its  scope  to      "during the  period of operation of      the  proclamation   of  emergency",

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

    there  are   no   such   words   of      limitation to be found in Rule 5(1)      of the  1972 Rules  nor has such an      inference  been   attempted  to  be      drawn from  other provisions in the      1972  Rules.   The  Tribunal   was,      therefore, in  error in resting its      decision  on   the  ratio  of  A.S.      Parmar case  which  turned  on  the      language  of   the   Punjab   rules      applicable to Haryana which are not      shown to  be in  pari materia  with      the  Himachal  Pradesh  rules.  The      Tribunal was,  therefore, wrong  in      confining the  benefit  under  Rule      5(1)  to   the  period  of  Dogra’s      actual service  in the  Army during      the emergency."      This Court  had held that this concession was, however, admissible for  first appointment.  Only Rule 5 provide that the military  service shall  count for  seniority promotion, increment and  pension in  the service  or post  held by him immediately before  he joined the military service. Thus the petitioners therein  became entitled to have seniority first according to  the above  rules on the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector.      Since he  has already  availed of  all the  benefits of seniority as  Taxation  Inspector  and  got  tagged  to  his service his  services  rendered  in  the  military  services between October  26, 1963  to September 19, 1969 as Taxation Inspector, the  same period  cannot be  availed  of  in  his subsequent appointment though in a higher cadre, namely, the gazette cadre Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer.      The appeal  is accordingly allowed and the order of the High Court  stands set aside. The respondent’s claim will be determined in accordance with the rule. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.