Civil Writ Petition No. 33 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 33 of 1991 Date of decision: 15.02.2011 Ram Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner, who is working as Warden in Central Jail, Ambala, has filed this writ petition for grant of military benefits to him for the purpose of seniority, promotion and arrears. The petitioner claims himself to be an Ex-serviceman, who has served in the territorial army. As per the petitioner, he has joined the territorial army on 24.09.1956 and had worked with 140 Medium Regiment (TA). He was discharged on 25.12.1967. Copy of the discharge certified is at Annexure P-1. The embodied service of the petitioner mentioned in the discharge service is from 06.03.1960 to 19.03.1967 and 26.10.1962 to 19.03.1967. Claiming that the service in the territorial army is part of parcel of the services in the Armed Forces, the petitioner would state that he is entitled to avail the benefit as an Ex-serviceman from the Armed Forces and thus has made a claim for grant of increment, seniority, pension, promotion, leave etc. under Punjab Government National Emergency Concession Rules, 1965 Civil Writ Petition No. 33 of 1991 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The written statement has been filed. It is stated that the territorial army is not one of the three wings of the Indian Armed Forces and, therefore, the service rendered would not be covered by the definition of the military service as given in Rule 1 of the Act. In the reply, reference has made to the document titled “ A Guide to Re-settlement of Ex-servicemen” where a member of the territorial army has been excluded from the expression ex-serviceman. Copy of the said document has been placed on record as Annexure R-1. Perusal of Annexure R-1 would show that it is explained as to who is an ex-serviceman. It is stated that an ex-serviceman is a person, who has served in any rank whether combatant or non-combatant in the Armed Forces of the Union including the Armed Forces for the former Indian States but excluding Assam Rifles, Defence Security Corps, General Reserved Engineering Force, Lok Sahayak, Sena and Territorial Army. Accordingly, the submission is that the petitioner cannot be treated as ex-serviceman and, hence, cannot be given benefit for his service with the State Government as a Warden in the Central Jail, Ambala. During the course of hearing of the petition, the petitioner has supplemented his pleadings and has placed on record Annexure P-7 through miscellaneous application. Annexure P-7 is communication dated 08.07.1963 issued by Financial Commissioner Planning, Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab. Reference in this regard is made to Ex-serviceman and member of territorial army. Under this caption, it is recorded that the maximum age limits prescribed for civil employment under the Punjab State Civil Writ Petition No. 33 of 1991 3 would be relaxed and the period of their approved military service will be excluded in counting the age for this purpose provided that they produce a certificate from the military authorities that they were continuously in military service for the period not less than 6 months and were discharged because of demobilization/reduction and not more than three years prior from the date registration at an employment exchange. The period of approved military service will count for increments, seniority and pension in civil employment. The concession in this letter has been allowed in those cases where the person who had joined military service during that emergency. The petitioner cannot place reliance on this document as even in his writ, prayer is for grant of benefits under 1965 rules. Otherwise also the petitioner had not joined the service during the emergency referred to in Annexure P-7 and he had joined the territorial army in the year 1955. Thus, the instructions, Annexure P-7, would not strictly apply to the case of the petitioner. The status of the petitioner as an Ex-serviceman is in serious dispute. A person who has served in Territorial Army may not fall within the term Ex-serviceman to claim the concession under 1965 rules. The respondents have made reference to definition of an ex-serviceman as given in the Guide to Re-settlement of Ex- servicemen. I have my doubts if this definition can strictly define the term Ex-serviceman. It may give an indication about the terms. One may have to notice that person serving in Territorial Army was not entitled to pension which has recently been allowed that to on completion of 20 years of embodied service. There is no definition of ex-serviceman given in 1965 Rules. Accordingly, this word has to Civil Writ Petition No. 33 of 1991 4 be assigned a meaning as is understood in the common parlance or as is it may be understood in the Armed Forces. The Guidance can be taken from the definition of ex-serviceman given and relied upon by the respondent. No different result may follow if the provisions of Army Act, Air Force Act and Naval Act are strictly construed. The persons subject to Army Act in a way could be treated as those who are ex-serviceman. The persons serving in the Territorial Army though may be subject to the act under Section 2 of the Army Act but they are subjected when doing duty as such officers and enrolled persons of the said Army when they are called out or embodied or attached to any regular force. Even then their subjection is subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be made in the application of the Army Act to such persons under sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Territorial Army Act, 1948. Thus, their subjection to act is limited to the extent noted above. Otherwise, their service conditions are governed under the provisions of the Territorial Army Act. These persons certainly cannot be equated with those who are enrolled under the Army Act or are commissioned or are officers, Junior Commissioned Officers or the Warrant Officers of the regular Army. These persons, thus, may not strictly fall under the definition of Ex- servicemen. In view of the detailed discussion above, I am of the view that it is not possible to grant the relief claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition as the service rendered by him in the Territorial Army may not strictly be called a military service of which benefit can be given to the petitioner. In any case, the petitioner has not been able Civil Writ Petition No. 33 of 1991 5 to make out a case on the basis of any rule, order or instruction that he would be entitled to the grant of benefit of this service for the purpose of seniority, pay and allowances etc. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and it is so ordered. February 15, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE