CWP No. 18129 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18129 of 2006 Date of Decision: February 04, 2009 Mohinder Singh and another ...... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Jitender Nara, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana for the respondents. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. The petitioners joined the Indian Army during the National emergency on 11.11.1962 from where they were discharged on 30.9.1990. Thus their service during the National emergency comes to 5 years 1 month and 20 days. Within a period of three years i.e. w.e.f. 24.9.1993 the petitioners were appointed in the office of Zila Sainik Board from where they retired on 30.4.2001 and 31.7.2000 respectively. They have been denied pension on the ground that they are already getting pension from the CWP No. 18129 of 2006 2 Military Authorities. Their claim is that their army service during National Emergency be also counted towards pension. This controversy has already been resolved in CWP No. 2327 of 2005, Harikesh V. State of Haryana and others decided on 19.5.2006 wherein a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- “ The petitioner has reproduced instructions of the Government in para 13 of the writ petition to substantiate his plea that the embargo contained in Rule 4 (1) of the Punjab National (Concession) Rules, 1965 curtailing the benefit of military service for pension and pensionary benefits has been removed. Relevant notification under the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 regarding the removal of limitation of pensionary benefits in second spell for re- employed military pensioners has not been denied in para 13 of the written statement and it has been reiterated that the pension during the civil service has not been denied only on the ground that the petitioner is getting pension on account of his military pension but it has been denied on the basis of break of more than 5 years between discharge from military service and joining of the civil service. In view of the above, there does not appear to be any controversy regarding the grant of benefits of military service rendered during emergency for the purpose of determining pensionary benefits of civil service. CWP No. 18129 of 2006 3 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx We have carefully considered the reason depicted by the respondents for denying the petitioner the benefit of his military service rendered during emergency for the purpose of pension and are unable to agree to the justification put forth by the respondents for denial of statutory right to the petitioner. The justification of the respondents is absolutely contrary to the scope,meaning and interpretation of Rule 4 (iii) (3) of the Rules.” Learned counsel for the respondents could not deny the factum of the above mentioned judgment having been passed by this Court. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of the petitioners after counting their army service during National emergency. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 04, 2009 sunita