R.S. Dhull v. State Of Haryana And Another
LPA No. 2016 of 2019 2024:PHHC:047876-DB -1IN 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. 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 -2case 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:-
! "#$$%$&'&
((&$&)* + , -
- + +.
"
+
!
+/ " +
+
" ('&$&)*
0($&)0
+
+ -
+
! 1 " -
,
+ / , +
+-
- +- , "
"
- +
,
+ /
+
-
-
+
LPA No. 2016 of 2019 2024:PHHC:047876-DB -3-
- 3
+ 4 &5 "
+ + "
"" " #0 "
-"
+ +
6 "
"
-
. 7 However, the appellant being not satisfied, moved review application before the learned Single Bench, which was dismissed on 13.08.2019 holding that review case cannot be re-opened to grant additional relief. He, thereafter, filed the present LPA as learned Single Bench disallowed the benefit of service rendered by the appellant from 11.01.1968 to 01.07.1968. 3.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the definition of military service as defined in Rule 2 of the Punjab National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 was considered in the judgment of Ex.-Captain K. C. Arora and another vs State of Haryana and others AIR 1987 SC 1858 and the said definition was quashed. It is submitted that in view thereof the military service as defined earlier to mean service rendered during the period of operation and proclamation of emergency i.e. upto 10.01.1968 was unjustified and the entire military service rendered by the appellant upto 01.07.1968 should have been counted.
4.
We have considered the submissions and find that in K. C. Arora's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as under:- "9.
"
8.+
"
3- "
- #%&
9 8.+1 " -
LPA No. 2016 of 2019 2024:PHHC:047876-DB -4- 2 $&': ( # * :
;(< !
/ 9" - = "
"" -
" !
> ?
+-
"
" -"+- 8 #:(
2
('
?
+ $&'(
"-
+ " -
-
" -
+- " - +6 @ -A #@/"" " """,
"/"" " +
- + /
" -
/
" -
" " - " -
/ "
+
"
+
"
-
" -" /
" -"
" + " + " - +
/ " " +
-
"
" - " -
""" , +
- +"
, - ,+-/
, ,
+
* " -
" -
" - " +- " -
""" +
-
" > """ + """ + #&#$%#$$
8.+2
LPA No. 2016 of 2019 2024:PHHC:047876-DB -5A B " +"+ - A -
" - $ + 6
" -
" - 8
" -
-
"
" +.
$ " -
" - , (-+ -
" - +-
+
A
" # -+
"" -
-
"
/ - - / - +
/ - "- +
/
" : A - "
"
" " - " - +-
" " -
- "
" +- " "" - +
.
" - "
" " - " -
+
" "" - +
.
" -
" -
" " - " - +
+- " - " - +
" "
=/ + =
-
+
.
" - 7 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 -6counted 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 -7learned 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:- & > 2
"
" - / "
3- 2 A
- $&0% $&0( $&0# > /" -
+ +
A C
< D
3 2 - / " 2 +-3 8 2 ""
+
+ +- 2 ""
+ ""
2 ""
- 6
+ - "+ A
+ ++
"- " - 3 8 2 ""
+-
-
+. >
-
A C < D 3
"
, $% @ . "
+"
2 $:$%$&&) +
+
3 +"
+ /+
+ 6 8!
- +
"3 -
.
> 8! -"
-
+- $:$%$&&)>
/
++-
"
"
8! -
+ " +
"
+
$(5" 8! - " "+"-+
"
-" "
"7
LPA No. 2016 of 2019 2024:PHHC:047876-DB -8-
! " # $ %
&
'
( )
*
* ! %
(
! + + * ,
+ - %& ! "
& ! *%
* ! +
*% .
%+
* % / !
&
%*
! 0 / ! 1 *
*
! + + &*
/ * 1 , %* %+ * ",
! 0 *
" % !
% 2 ! *
LPA No. 2016 of 2019 2024:PHHC:047876-DB -9- 34
! 5 &
! * 15.
All pending applications shall stand disposed of.
7 $ '8
9 $ 9