Holding

Seniority of military service cannot be extended to civil service for personnel who were not recruited during an emergency, and therefore the appellants are not entitled to such seniority or consequential benefits.

Summary

The appellants, former Indian Air Force sergeants, were appointed as junior Sports Officers by the Punjab Government under the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965, and claimed that their 15 years of military service should be counted for seniority and consequential benefits in the civil service. The High Court dismissed their writ petition, holding that the benefit of reckoning military service for seniority was intended only for personnel recruited during the emergency period. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the scope of the 1965 Rules and the later 1977 demobilised Armed Force Personnel Rules, and relied on the precedent in Ram Janam Singh v. State of U.P. (1994) which limited such preferential treatment to those who joined the armed forces during an emergency. The Court concluded that the appellants, who were regular personnel appointed after the emergency, were not entitled to seniority credit for their military service. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether past service rendered in the Indian Air Force can be counted for seniority and consequential benefits in civil service under the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965.
Whether the Punjab demobilised Armed Force Personnel (Reservation of vacancies in Punjab State Non-Technical Service) Rules, 1977 apply retrospectively to persons appointed before the Rules came into force.
Whether the principle laid down in Ram Janam Singh v. State of U.P. (1994) extends to regular military personnel who were not recruited during an emergency.

Subjects

senioritymilitary servicecivil servicedemobilised personnelemergency rulesreservationconsequential benefitspreferential treatmentservice law

Judgment

A CHITIAMNJAN SINGH CHIMA AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

B
FEBRUARY 6, 1997

(K. RAMASWAMY AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.]
-
Service Law:

Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965:

c Seniority-Service rendered in Military-Whether could be computed for
seniority in Civil Service and resultant consequential benefits-Held; Seniority
of service rendered in Military cannot be extended to the personnel like the
appellants since they were not recruited during emergency to whom the benefit
of seniority and consequential benefits were given.
D Ram Janam Singh v. State of U.P., (1994] 2 SCC 622, distinguished.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2474 of
1981.

E From the Judgment and Order dated 4.12.80 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 2860 of 1979.

AP. Mohanty and S.K. Sabbarwal for the Appellant.

Ranbir Y adar for R.S. Suri for the Respondents.

F The following order of the Court was delivered : ·

The appellants, Dalip Singh Sidhu and Chittaranjan Singh Chima
were enrolled in Indian Air Force in December 7, 1957 and September 3,
1959 respectively. After completing 15 years of service, they were released
from the Air Force in their ranks as Sergeants on January 25, 1974 and
G December 31, 1974 respectively. When recruitment to the posts of sports
personnel was advertised, they came to be appointed as junior Sports
Officers by the Punjab Government on September 30, 1974 and October
29, 1976 respectively. They filed Writ Petition no. 2860/79 in the High Court ,___
claiming past service in the Air Force as demobilised defence personnel.
H The Division Bench by Judgment dater( December 9, 1980 following its
1010
C.S. CHIMAv. SfATE 1011
earlier judgment in State of Punjab v. Pritam Chand, LPA No. 401 of (1976) A
·.~
dismissed the writ petition. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

Shri A.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants, contended
that the Government had applied the Punjab demobilized Armed Force
Personnel (Reservation of vacancies in Punjab ~tate Non-Technical Ser-
vice) Rules, 1977 dated April 20, 1977 with retrospective effect dated B
February 28, 1973. Rule 2(c) reads as under:

"2{c) 'release' means (with its grammatical variations) release as
per the scheduled year of release after a spell of service, from the
Armed Forces of the Union but does not include release during C
or at the end of training, or during or at the end of short service
Commission granted to cover periods such training prior to being
taken in actual service or release on account of misconduct or
inefficiency or at the request of a released Indian Armed Forces
Personnel himself."
D
He contends that the said rule has no application to the per~ons who
' were appointed before the 1977 Rules came into force~ The High Court,
therefore, was not right in denying the benefit of the past service and the
consequential benefits ensured thereunder. The question is : whether the
appellants are entitled to the benefit of their past service rendered in the E
Military for the computation of their seniority in the civil service and
resultant consequential benefits .

. The Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules,
1965, the rules under which the appellants came to be appointed, define
"military service" to mean enrolled or commissioned service in any of the p
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 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 .G
reckoned as military service." It would, thus, be seen that for the purpose
of military service, it would be an officer enrolled or commissioned in any
of the three wings of the Indian Armed Force and rendered service during
the period of operation of the proclamation of emergency and such of the
military service as may be declared thereafter by the Government for the H
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R.

A purpose of the entitlement under the Rule. Since the appellants came to
be appointed under this, they have not been given any benefit of reckoning
of the military service for the purpose of seniority and consequential
benefits in the civil service. 1968 Rules and 1977 Rules contemplate of
giving the reservation and also consequential benefit of seniority reckoning
B the military service to such of those officers who rendered service in the
military during emergency with a view to encourage the personnel who
came forward to serve the country at the time of emergency. Admittedly,
the appellants came to be appointed not during the emergency but in the
regular process.

C This Court in Ram Janam Singh v. State of U.P., (1994) 2 SCC 622
to which one of us (K. Ramaswamy, J.) was a member, had held that
preferential treatment be given to those who joined armed forces during
emergency and that grant of notional seniority in ciVil services by taking
into account service rendered in armed forces is constitutionally valid but
such benefit cannot be extended to those who joined armed forces during
D normal tines.

The counter-affidavit filed in the High Court does indicate that on
completion of 15 years of service, at their own request they were released
from Indian Army (Air Force) and they are getting pension as pensioners.
E Under thse circumstances, they are the regular personnel who have taken
military service as a career and after retirement, they came to be appointed
in the quota prescribed for demobilised military personnel. The question
of seniority of service rendered in the military cannot be extended to the
personnel like appellants since they were not recruited during emergency
to whom the benefit of seniority and consequential benefits were given.
F Therefore, the High Court, though for different reasons was justified in
refusing to grant the relief sought for.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

G.N. Appeal dismissed.
'-·