vil Appeal No 2 193 of 1982
From the Judgment and Order dated 2951980 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No 706 of 1973
Dr YS Chitale and Ashok Grover for the Appellant
RK Garg and DK Garg for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KN SAIKIA J
This appeal by special leave is from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the appellant s regular second appeal No 706 of 1973 dismissing the appeal and allowing the respondent s civil writ petition against the order passed by the Assistant Collector
Late Wg
KK Majumdar of the Indian Air Force father of the appellant laid down his life during the second world war
He was conferred a gallantary award posthumously by the Government wherewith 442 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land bearing Chak Nos
535 G V situated in Tehsil and District Layallpur was granted to him and was allotted to the appel lant Shri SK Majumdar who took possession on July 24 1947
Consequent to the partition of the country the family of 820 late Wg
KK Majumdar had to migrate to India where the Government allotted 69 standard acres and 2 units of land to the appellant in Village Dhogri Tehsil and District Jullundhur as compensation for the land left behind at Layallpur Pakistan
Out of this land 19 standard acres came under possession of the respondent Malik Labhu Masih now deceased as a tenant
On February 26 1961 Malik Labhu Masih filed an applica tion under section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Act  to the Assistant Collector stating that he was a tenant in respect of the land in question and should be granted permission to purchase it
As per order of the Assistant Collector Grade I Jullundhur dated 15th January 1962 the said Labhu Masih was granted the requisite permission subject to the payment of Rs2100788 P in 10 equal half yearly instalments of Rs210080 P each
The appellant appealed therefrom to the Collector Jullundhur who upheld the permission to purchase but enhanced the amount payable to the appellant as landlord to Rs2313353 P
During the pendency of the said proceed ings the appellant moved an application under section 9 read with section 14A of the Act for ejectment of the respondent and obtained an order on 27th September 1961
The respond ent moved a revision petition before the Commissioner in the proceedings initiated under section 18 of the Act and the Commissioner made recommendation to the Financial Commis sioner for setting aside the orders of the Assistant Collec tor and the ColleCtor allowing the purchase of land by the respondent on the ground that the application of the appel lant for ejectment of the respondent had since been allowed
The Financial Commissioner accordingly set aside the order of purchase
The respondent impugned that order in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in writ petition No 1158 of 1963 and the High Court quashed that order on 30th August 1966
On July 3 1970 the appellant filed a suit against the respondent for possession of the lands contending that the respondent had entered on a part of the land as tenant and subsequently applied for purchase of the land under section 18 of the Act but by virtue of section 19 DD of the Act which was inserted on August 3 1968 with retrospective effect the suit property of gallantry award was exempted from the provisions of the  Act and as such the respondent could not purchase the land under section 18 of the Act and the orders passed by the Assistant Collector as also of High Court were nullity and the respondent was consequently liable to be ejected
The trial court dismissed the suit
The appellant s appeal therefrom was also having been dis missed by the Additional District Judge Jullundhur the appellant preferred second appeal to the High 821 Court of Punjab and Haryana which also dismissed the appeal holding that section 19 DD of the Act was not applicable to the suit land and the tenant could purchase it under section 18
Dr YS Chitale the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the High Court was in error in holding that the land in question having been granted to the appellant SK Majumdar the landlord in the year 1946 the same could not be said to be covered by the provisions of section 19 DD of the Act
We are inclined to agree
Though the Memorandum No 2354 C Lahore dated the 30th March 1946 from DSD to the Commissioner Lahore Rawalpindi and Multan Divisions on the subject Award of land in the Punjab for acts of gallantry in the field  with reference to Punjab Government Memorandum No 3583 C dated 30th November 1944 contained the instruc tions to allot two squares rectangles of land to the heir of the grantee noted in the margin in accordance with the orders contained in the aforesaid Memorandum and showed the appellant Shri SK Majumdar it could not been said that the grant itself was to the appellant
The said Memorandum No 3583 C dated 30th November 1944 clearly showed that the Government had decided that in the case of posthumous grants allotments would be made to the heirs in the following order a the male lineal descendants of the de ceased in the male line of descent
 I having not been in dispute that the appellant SK Majum dar was the male lineal descendant of the deceased Wg
KK Majumdar the allotment was to be made in his name and hence it was done so
Section 19 DD of the Act which was inserted by the Punjab Act No 12 of 1968 and was to be deemed always to have been inserted said Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act where any land is granted for gallantry at any time before the 26th day of January 1950 to any member of the armed forces wheth er maintained by the Central Government or by any Indian State then so long as such land or any portion thereof as the case may be has not passed from the original grantee into more than three successive hands by inheri tance or bequest and is held by the grantee or any of such hands such land or portion as the case may be shall 822 not be taken into account on computing the surplus area under this Act nor shall any tenant of such land or portion have the right to purchase it under section 18
Provided that where such land or portion has passed into more than three such hands and the person holding such land or portion immediately before the 3rd August 1967 is a person to whom it has passed by inheritance or bequest the exemption under this section shall apply to such land or portion thereof as the case may be during the life time of such person
 From the language of this section and from the fact that the date of the award of the grant of the land for gallantry having been before the 26th day of January 1950 so long as such land or any portion thereof as the case may be had not passed from the original grantee into more than three successive hands by inheritance or bequest and was held by the grantee or any of such hands such land or portion as the case may be should not be taken into account on comput ing the surplus area under the Act
nor shall any tenant of such land or portion have the right to purchase it under section 18
Mr RK Garg the learned counsel for the respondents while not refuting the proposition of law points out that the land in respect of which the respondent has obtained the order of purchase as tenant is not the land granted to Wg
KK Majumdar for gallantry award
That land was in Layallpur and the suit land in respect of which the respond ent acquired socially beneficial right of purchase is situ ate at village Dhogri Tehsil and District Jullundhur in the State of Punjab and as such it cannot be exempted under section 19 DD
Dr Chitale answers that this land was given as compensation for the gallantry award land left behind by the awardee family at Layallpur as a result of partition of the country and as such equity demands that privilege of exemption should be acquired by the compensation land
Besides Dr Chitale submits that equity is in favour of the appellant who has acquired the right to purchase as tenant in occupation after a long time
We are referred to the provisions of the 
It is an Act to provide for the payment of compensation and reha bilitation grants to displaced persons and for matters connected therewith
We have not been shown in it any provi sion to the effect that any land given as compensation to 823 a displaced person for loss of gallantry award land may imbibe the convent of exemption available under section 19 DD of the Act
We are consequently of the view that there is no basis for holding that the exemption in respect of the gallantry award land will be available in respect of the land given under the as compensation for the loss thereof
We find no infirmity in the High Court judgment on this count
Equity is being claimed by both the parties
Under the circumstances we have no other alternative but to let the loss lie where it falls
As the maxim is in aequali jure melior est conditio possidentis 
Where the equities are equal the law should prevail
The respondent s right to purchase must therefore prevail
In the result this appeal fails and hence dismissed but without any order as to costs
The stay order stands vacated
NVK Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The services of the respondent an employee of the appellant company were terminated in accordance with the Standing Orders of the company approved by the appropriate authorities under the provisions of the  and the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act 1947
Standing Order NO 2a defined  employees  as  all persons  employed in the Office or Mains Department or Stores or Power House or Receiving Station of the Company  whose names and ticket numbers are included in the departmental musters 
The Standing Orders also defined the term  workman  and provided that every workman should have a ticket
No ticket had been issued to the respondent by the company and consequently his ticket number was not included in the departmental muster
The respondent challenged the validity of the order terminating his services by an application made before the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution on the grounds inter alia that the Standing Orders in question were confined to those employees only to whom tickets were issued and that as no ticket was issued to him he was not an employee within the meaning of the Standing Orders which did not therefore apply to him and consequently the termination of his services under Standing Order No 161 was illegal Held 1 that the words  whose names and ticket numbers are included in the departmental musters  occurring in Standing Order NO 2 a should be read as  whose names and ticket numbers if any are included in the departmental musters  Cortis vs The Kent Water Works Company    and Perumal Goundan vs The Thirumalarayapuram jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sangha Nidhi Mad 624 applied
2that under the Standing Orders in which a distinction is made between employees  and workmen  while every workman must have a ticket there may be employees who may have no tickets the possession of which is not an essential characteristic of an employee and 3that the Standing Orders apply to all employees for whose benefit they have been made
464 Accordingly the Standing Orders were applicable to the respondent and the termination of his service in accordance with Standing Order No 161 was valid and therefore the application made by him to the High Court must fail