IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.919 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.2.2010 Inderjit Kaushik and others -----Appellants Vs. State of Punjab and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. V.K.Shukla, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Reeta Kohli, Addl.A.G.Punjab for the State. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellants seeking benefit of counting of military service under the provisions of the Punjab Government National Emergency Rules, 1965 (for short, ‘the 1965 rules’). 2. Case of the appellants was that they joined Army during emergency and were discharged/retired in 1979. Thereafter, they joined Judicial service and sought benefit of the 1965 rules. The claim was contested by pointing out LPA No.919 of 1994 (O&M) that since they joined service after 1982 by which time Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 came into force, they were not entitled to the benefit of 1965 rules. Relying upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.T.Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others, (1990) 3 SCC 157, it was held that a candidate had right to be considered according to terms and conditions in the advertisement and had no vested right to be governed by rules which were amended. 3. Learned Single Judge upheld the plea of the respondents and dismissed the writ petition. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that after judgment of the learned Single Judge, there was retrospective amendment by Punjab Recruitment of Ex- Servicemen (Second Amendment) Rules, 2004, to the effect that period of military service will be counted for increments and pension as mentioned in the said rules and that benefit will be available to all those who were appointed in government service before or after 11.2.1982. 2 LPA No.919 of 1994 (O&M) It is submitted that in view of the said rules, the claim of the petitioners has to be reconsidered. 6. In view of above development, let the matter be reconsidered by the High Court on the administrative side in accordance with law. 7. The appeal is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge February 22, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 3