R.S. Dhull v. State of Haryana and Another

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.

The appellant before this Court had preferred writ petition wherein he prayed to count the period from 29.04.1963 to 01.07.1968 rendered in military service as Emergency Commissioned Officer as qualifying service for grant of pension. Further he prayed to direct the respondents to count the paramilitary service from 31.10.1969 to 22.09.1974 rendered as a Class-1 Officer in General Reserve Engineer Force for calculating the proper pension. It was further prayed to count the training period of a Tehsildar post as State Civil Service from 26.09.1974 to

08.02.1978 in view of Haryana Revenue (Group-B) Service Rules, 1988 and Rule 22 of the Central Civil Service Pension Rules, 1972 and State Government instructions dated 15.10.1971. It was also prayed to quash the order dated 11.12.1978 by which period of military service from 29.04.1963 to 10.01.1968 was counted illegally towards seniority and denying the arrears of pay and the period of military service from 11.01.1968 to 01.07.1968 was not counted. It was also prayed that the respondents be directed to consider his LPA No. 2016 of 2019       2024:PHHC:047876-DB                      -2-

case for promotion to the cadre of IAS/ HCS against the reserved post under Punjab Civil Service (Executive) Rules, 1930 and Rules 4, 6 and 7 of IAS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 and Appointments by Promotion Rules, 1955 after taking into account the entire military service.

2.    Notices  were  issued  in  the  writ  petition  and  reply  was  filed. Whereafter learned Single Bench passed a detailed judgment on 30.11.2016 and allowed the writ petition as under:-"As  a  result  of  foregoing  discussion,  the  present  writ petition is allowed. It is ordered as under:-

(i)k The service of the petitioner under GREF from 31.10.1969 to 22.9.1974 will be treated as qualifying service for the purpose  of  grant  of  pensionary  benefits  subject  to  the conditions laid down in the Government instructions. The gap between the service of the petitioner in the GREF and Tehsildar shall be excluded while computing the benefit of said service to be given to the petitioner.

(ii)k The  training  period  of  the  petitioner  as  Tehsildar  from

26.9.1974 to 8.2.1978 is treated to be as service for all intents and purposes, including grant of retiral benefits. Accordingly, after granting the benefit of First National Emergency, the date of appointment of the petitioner as Tehsildar is required to be refixed and the consequential benefits are to follow. The rules, instructions and orders passed  by  the  respondents  to  the  contrary  are  hereby quashed.

In  the  circumstances,  after  computing  the  said service, the pension and other pensionary benefits of the petitioner are required to be recalculated and refixed. It is further directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any  arrears  of salary  and other service benefits  etc. on LPA No. 2016 of 2019 2024:PHHC:047876-DB -3-

account of undue dela- and latches in approaching this 2ourt. 3owever, he is entitled to arrears of pension and other  retiral  +enefits.  Interest  4  &5  per  annu"  on  the arrears  of  pension  and  other  retiral  +enefits,  which +eco"es  due  to  the  petitioner,  will  co""ence  fro"  #0 "onths prior to the date of the filing of present petition till date of pa-"ent. Arrears of pension, retiral +enefits and interest  +e  released  to  petition  (er)  (sic6)  within  three "onths fro" the date of receipt of a certified cop- of the .udg"ent.7

However, the appellant being not satisfied, moved review application before the learned Single Bench, which was dismissed on 13.08.2019 holding that review case cannot be re-opened to grant additional relief. He, thereafter, filed the present LPA as learned Single Bench disallowed the benefit of service rendered by the appellant from 11.01.1968 to 01.07.1968.

¶3Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the definition of military service as defined in Rule 2 of the Punjab National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 was considered in the judgment of Ex.-Captain K. C. Arora and another vs State of Haryana and others AIR 1987 SC 1858 and the said definition was quashed. It is submitted that in view thereof the military service as defined earlier to mean service rendered during the period of operation and proclamation of emergency i.e. upto 10.01.1968 was unjustified and the entire military service rendered by the appellant upto

01.07.1968 should have been counted.

¶4We have considered the submissions and find that in K. C. Arora's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as under:-"9. The Govern"ent of 8un.a+ prior to the for"ation of 3ar-ana  "ade  statutor-  rules  under Article  #%& of  the 2onstitution which are called 9The 8un.a+ 1ationaVAl RI ND"ERe SrINgGeHnc-LPA No. 2016 of 2019       2024:PHHC:047876-DB                      -4-

(Concession) Rules, 1965. The relevant rules 2, 3, 4, and 5 of these rules are as under : "2. Definition :- For the purpose of these rules, the expression  `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 India on 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.

3. Maximum age-limit and minimum qualification:

i)  The  maximum  age-limit  prescribed  for appointment  to  any  service  or  post  shall  be  relaxed  in favour of a person who has rendered military service to the extent of his military service, provided he produces a certificate  from  the  competent  authority  that  he  had rendered continuous military service for a period of not less  than  six  months  and  was  discharged  because  of demobilisation  or  reduction  not  more  than  three  years prior  to  the  date  of  his  registration  at  an employment exchange  or  the  date  of  his  application  for employment under the Government.

ii)  A  person  who  has  become  disabled  while  in military service shall also be entitled to exclude from his age the period from the date he was disabled up to the date of his application for appointment to any service or post under  the  Government,  or  till  the  end  of  the  present emergency, whichever is shorter.

iii)  In  case  a  person  who  has  rendered  military service  does  not  possess  the  minimum  qualification prescribed for any service or post, he shall be deemed to possess  these  qualifications  if  the  appointing  authority certifies that such a person has acquired by experience or otherwise qualification equivalent to those prescribed for that service or post.

4.  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 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 LPA No. 2016 of 2019       2024:PHHC:047876-DB                      -5-

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)  Pension  :  The  period  of  military  service mentioned in clause (i) shall count towards pension only in the case of appointments to permanent services or posts under the Government subject to the following conditions :

(1)  The  person  concerned  should  have  earned  a pension  under  military  rules  in  respect  of  the  military service in question.

(2) Any bonus or gratuity paid in respect of military service by the defence authorities shall have to be refunded to the State Government.

(3) The period, if any, between the date of discharge from military service and the date of appointment to any service  or  post  under  the  Government  shall  count  for pension, provided such period does not exceed one year. Any  period  exceeding  one  year  but  not  exceeding  three years  may  also  be  allowed  to  count  for  pension  in exceptional cases under the orders of the Government.

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 employees shall during military service, be governed by the 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."

5.    The definition of military service having been set aside, the entire service of the appellant upto to the period he was released on 01.07.1968 was required to be counted. The respondents have although counted the period from 29.04.1963 to 10.01.1968 in view of the law down in K. C. Arora's case (supra), the service beyond 10.01.1968 upto 01.07.1968 would, therefore, be LPA No. 2016 of 2019 2024:PHHC:047876-DB -6-

counted as military service for the purpose of grant of benefit under Rule 4 to the said extent and the order passed by the learned Single Bench deserves to be modified and the relief required to be given to him.

6.

The second grievance raised by the appellant is regarding grant of his benefits. It is submitted that the learned Single Bench has held the appellant to be entitled to pension and pensionary benefits after recalculation and re-fixation of salary. Further directed that he shall not be entitled for arrears of salary and other service benefits etc. on account of undue delay and latches in approaching this Court. It was further directed that the appellant would be entitled to arrears of pension and other retiral benefits along with interest @ 9% per annum which becomes due to him commencing from 38 months prior to the date of filing the writ petition till the date of payment. Arrears of pension, retiral benefits and interest were also directed to be relased for the said period of 38 months alone.

7.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no delay on the part of the appellant as he has sought quashing of the order whereby period of service was counted from 29.04.1963 to 10.01.1968 towards seniority and denying the arrears of pay and military service from 11.01.1968 to 01.07.1968 had not been counted. He further submits that the appellant is a retired officer and had earlier also preferred writ petition before this Court. The matter travelled upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ex. Captain R. S. Dhull vs State of Haryana 1998 (4) SCC 379. He submits that the appellant was always aware of his rights and had been pursuing the case although upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court. It is submitted that the issue of pension itself was a subject matter of adjudication before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The LPA No. 2016 of 2019       2024:PHHC:047876-DB                      -7-

learned Single Bench has denied wrongfully the actual benefits, which were payable to him.

8.    We have considered the submissions of the appellant as well as of the respondents. We noticed that Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the earlier round of litigation (supra) has observed as under:-

9.  We have heard learned Counsel for the parties on the main grievance  of  the  appellant  i.e.  that  his  name  was  wrongly excluded  from  consideration  for  appointment  to  the  Haryana Civil  Service  for  the  years  1980,  1982  and  1983.  We  have examined the record also. The appellant had only a right to be considered and we agree both with the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court that his case was properly considered ignoring the expunged adverse entries made in his Annual Confidential Reports by a High Powered Committee but the appellant  was not  found suitable by  that  Committee to be recommended  to  the  Commission.  It  is,  therefore,  futile  to contend that there was any lack of consideration of his case or that the consideration of his case was based on any irrelevant or inadmissible  grounds.  The  record  reveals  that  his  case  was considered  alongwith  the  Service  record  of  the  other  eligible condidates who had been brought on the select list and we are not persuaded to hold that the consideration of his case suffered from any infirmity. The plea that the High Powered Committee was influenced by the adverse entries is not correct and deserves a notice only to be rejected. We, therefore, do no find any reason to interfere with the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division  Bench  in  that  regard.  However,  there  is  one  other aspect of the matter which requires our consideration.

10.  Mr.  Raju  Ramachandran,  learned  senior  advocate submitted  that  in  spite  of  the  orders  of  this  Court  dated

15.10.1997 (supra) all the retiral benefits have not so far been paid  to  the  appellant.  He  submitted  that  while  provisional pension has been fixed, but other benefits like G.P. Fund dues, Gratuity etc. have no so far been paid to him. He rightly argued that the respondents were not justified to Withhold the G.P. Fund and the Gratuity more particularly in view of the directions given by us on 15.10.1997. We, therefore, direct that while the case of fixation of proper pension of the appellant shall be decided by the respondents within three months from the date of this order, the G.P. Fund, Gratuity and other retiral benefits (which remain unpaid) shall also be paid to the appellant within the aforesaid period of three months. The appellant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the withheld G.P. Fund and Gratuity etc. from the date the same became payable to him on  his  attaining  the  age  of  superannuation  till  the  date  the payment is made to him." LPA No. 2016 of 2019       2024:PHHC:047876-DB                      -8-

9.    Learned  counsel  for  the  respondents  has  relied  upon  the judgment in M. R. Gupta vs Union of India and others 1995 (5) SCC 628 to submit that only arrears can be released for a fixed period.

10.    We  have  considered  the  submissions.  The  appellant  had  been denied his pension and he took up the matter before this Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court where the issue was finally settled in his favour. He has been continuously adjudicating his rights and, therefore, it cannot be said that there were latches on his part.

11.    In M.R.Gupta (supra), the Central Administrative Tribunal had denied  the  benefit  of  pay  fixation  to  the  petitioner  on  the  ground  of approaching the Tribunal belatedly. Since we have reached to the conclusion that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the appellant, the judgment of M.R.Gupta (supra) will have no application to the facts of the present case. Moreover, it is a continuous cause and the appellant has been subjected to continuous wrong as the period of his service has been denied as qualifying period for the purpose of assessing his final pension.

12.    This Court is of the further view that the order passed by the learned Single Bench requires to be modified and the directions to pay arrears for 38 months prior to the date of filing of the writ petition is found to be without any basis and, therefore, is set aside. The appellant would be entitled to all the consequential benefits from the date these were due.

13.    In  view  of  the  above,  the  appeal  is  allowed  to  the  aforesaid extent. It is directed that in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Bench the appellant would be entitled to fixation of his revised pension by counting the period of service upto July 1968 and further he would also be LPA No. 2016 of 2019       2024:PHHC:047876-DB                      -9-

entitled to actual arrears and interest thereon @ 9% per annum upto the date of payment.

14.    The appeal is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms.

15.    All pending applications shall stand disposed of.

16.    No costs. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

09.04.2024            (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) VS                 JUDGE

LPA No. 2016 of 2019 2024:PHHC:047876-DB -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 20.03.2024 Date of Decision : 09.04.2024 LPA No. 2016 of 2019 (O&M) R. S. Dhull …Appellant Versus The State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Harikesh Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.