STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.versusSHRI OM PRAKASH

A                        STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
                                          V.

                                SHRI OM PRAKASH

                                   JULY I 0, 2006

B                [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.]


          Service Law:

           Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965-
C    Rule 4(iii)-Pension-Entitlement of-Claimant serving in Armed Forces during
     period when emergency remained proclaimed, discharged and thereafter
     appointed in other service--Gap between the date of discharge and the date
     of appointment more than three years, hence, in terms of Rule 4(iii) claimant
     not entitled to pensionary benefits.
D
           Respondent rendered services in the Armed Forces during the period
     when emergency was proclaimed. He was discharged from Armed Forces
     on 13.6.1967. In 1972 he was appointed in other service. Respondent filed
     writ petition for claim of pension. Appellant-State submitted that in terms
     of Rule 4(iii) of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession)
E    Rules, 1965 since there was a gap of more than three years between date
     of discharge from Armed Forces and his date of appointment in other
     service, he was not entitled to pension. High Court held that the respondent
     was entitled to pension in terms of Rule 4(iii). Hence the present appeal.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court
F
          HELD: 1.1 In tl!rms of Rule 4(iii) of the Punjab Government
     National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 for the purpose of working
     out the entitlement to pension, the p_eriod if any between the date of
     discharge from military service and the date of appointment to any service
G    or post under the Government shall count for pension automatically if such
     peri~d does not exceed one year. But if the period exceeds one year but
     does not exceed three years, the period may be allowed to be counted in         •
     exceptional cases. The Government must pass an order holding that the
     case was an exceptional one and, therefore, instead of period of one year,
     period upto three years could be reckoned for the purpose of computation.
II                                       366
          STATE OF HARYANA v. SHRI OM PRAKASH [PASAYAT, J.]                  367

If the period is more than three years, there is no scope for including the          A
same for the purpose of working out the pensionary entitlements.
                                               1367-E; 368-G-H; 369-A-BI

       1.2. In the instant case, the period is undisputedly more than three
years, the respondent is not entitled to pensionary benefits in terms of Rule
4(iii) and the High Court erred in holding otherwise. The plea that though           B
the date of discharge is 13.6.1967 and the appointment was made in the
year 1972, but the process for selection had started in 1970 and his services
were regularized from 1972 after he had undergone military service, is
clearly untenable in view of the clear language of Rule 4(iii). It is irrelevant
as to when the process of selection had started or when the respondent               C
had undergone training as claimed. 1369-B-D)

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 691 of2005.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 17.7.2003 of High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 10477/2002.                                  D
      Pardeep Dahiya, Ajay Siwach and T.V. George for the Appellants.

      B.S. Mor and Mahinder Singh Dahiya for the Respondent

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                     E
       ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. The State of Haryana calls in question
correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court holding that the respondent was entitled to pension in
terms of Rule 4(iii) of the Punjab Government National Emergency
(Concession) Rules, 1965 (in short the 'Rules'). A writ petition was filed by        F
the respondent before the High Court claiming that he is entitled to pension
taking into consideration the services rendered by him in the Armed Forces
during the period when emergency was proclaimed. Placing reliance on Ru le
4 (iii), the aforesaid claim of the respondent was declined by the appellant.
It was stated that there was a gap of more than three years between the date         G
of discharge from the Armed Forces and his date of appointment as Veterinary
Live Stock Development Assistant.

      In the writ petition filed the respondent re-iterated his claim for pension.
According to him he fulfilled the conditions and therefore he was entitled to        H
pension. The State reiterated its stand that since there was a gap of more than
    368                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A three years, he was not entitled to any pension. The High Court held that the
    respondent was entitled to pensionary benefits because the services rendered
    by him during the period of his military service when emergency remained
    proclaimed shall be counted in addition to the qualifying service rendered by
    him in civil employment for the purpose of detennining pensionary benefits.
B   A direction was given to work out the details and grant the benefits.

          In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the State submitted that
    the High Court did not correctly interpret Rule 4(iii) of the Rules though the
    rule was noticed. A bare reading of the stipulated condition in the said rule
    makes the position clear that only if there was a gap of less than three years
C   the benefit is available. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
    supported the judgment.

         Jn order to appreciate the rival stands Rule 4(iii) needs to be quoted.
    The same reads as follows:

D          "4(iii) Increments Seniority and Pension:- Period of Military service
           shall count for increments, seniority and pension as under:-

               Pension: The period of military service mentioned in Clause-I
           shall count towards pension only in the case of appointments of
           pennanent service or post under the Govt. subject to the following
E          conditions:

               (!)The person concerned should not have earned a pension under
           military rules in respect of the military service in question.

               (2) The period, if any, between the date of discharge from military
F          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
           3 years may also be allowed to count for pension in exceptional cases
           under the orders of the Government."
G         A bare reading of the provision makes the position clear that for the
    purpose of computing the period of permanent service, two conditions are to
    be kept in view. First is that the person concerned should not have earned a
    pension under Military Rules in respect of the military service in question.
    The second condition in fact has two parts. For the purpose of working out
H   the entitlement, the period if any between the date of discharge from military
    service and the date of appointment to any service or post under the
         STATE OF HARYANA v. SHRI OM PRAKASH [PASAYAT, .I.]               369

Government shall count for pension automatically if such period does not          A
exceed one year. But ifthe period exceeds one year but does not exceed three
years, the period may be allowed to be counted in exceptional cases. In other
words, the Government must pass an order holding that the case was an
exceptional one and, therefore, instead of period of one year, period upto
three years could be reckoned for the purpose of computation. If the period       B
is more than three years, there is no scope for including the same for the
purpo.se of working out the pensionary entitlements.

       Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no dispute
that the date of discharge is 13.6.1967 and the appointment was made in the
year 1972. But the process for selection had started in 1970. It is urged that    C
his services were regularized from 1972 after he had undergone military
service. The aforesaid plea is clearly untenable in view of the clear language
of Rule 4(iii) as quoted above. There being no dispute that the appointment
was made in 1972. It is irrelevant as to when the process of selection had
started or when the respondent had undergone training as claimed. The
language of Rule 4(iii) is very clear to the effect that the period has to be     D
reckoned between the date of discharge upto the date of appointment. When
the period is undisputedly more than three years respondent is not entitled to
pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 4(iii) and the High Court erred in holding
otherwise. The impugned order of the High Cou11 is set aside. The appeal is
allowed. But there shall be no order as to costs.
                                                                                  E
N.J.                                                         Appeal allowed.