Civil Writ Petition No. 21472 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 21472 of 2010 Date of decision : 05.10.2011 Sukhchain Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and others ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition seeking quashing of impugned order dated 17.01.2008, Annexure P-7 whereby benefit of military service has been denied to him on the ground that only those employees would be entitled to same who joined during emergency. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was serving in Indian Army from 12.02.1975 to 11.12.1991. He later joined as DPE teacher. According to him, petitioner is entitled to benefit of military service rendered by him. Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer. He submits that only those employees are entitled to benefit of military service who joined during the period emergency was proclaimed. He relies upon judgment reported as State of Punjab Vs. Moti Singh, 2006 (1) RSJ, 528. Civil Writ Petition No. 21472 of 2010 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the petitioner joined military service on 12.02.1975 and continued till 11.12.1991. He was later appointed as DPE teacher in the Education Department on 12.11.1997. The petitioner submitted a written application for being granted the benefits of military service rendered by him and to count the same towards the seniority, promotion and other benefits. A legal notice (Annexure P-5) was also served by him. A decision thereon was taken by the concerned authority vide Annexure P-7 and the claim was rejected. Similar stand has been taken by the State in its reply filed by way of counter affidavit of Gurmeet Singh, District Education Officer (SE), Gurdaspur. It has been stated therein that only those employees who joined military service from 26.10.1962 to 01.10.1968 and thereafter entered civil services are entitled to benefit of military service as per instructions dated 13.10.1998, Annexure R-1. The petitioner, however, joined military service on 12.02.1975 and was thus not entitled to benefit of military service. In the judgment rendered in Moti’s Ram case supra, it has been observed as follows:- “14. Can it be said that the persons who had joined Army after the declaration of emergency due to foreign aggression and those who joined after the war came to an end stand on the same footing? Those who joined Army after revocation of emergency joined Army as a career. It is well known that many persons who joined army service during the foreign aggression, could have opted for other career or service. But the nation itself being under peril, impelled by the spirit to serve the nation, they opted for joining Army where then risk was writ large. No one can dispute that such persons formed a class by themselves and by rules aforesaid an attempt has been made to compensate those who returned from war if they compete in different services. According to us, the plea Civil Writ Petition No. 21472 of 2010 3 that even persons who joined army service after cessation of foreign aggression and revocation of emergency have to be treated like persons who have joined army service during emergency due to foreign aggression is a futile plea and should not have been accepted by the High Court. It need not be impressed that wherever any particular period spent in any other service by a person is added to the service to which such person joins later, it is bound to affect the seniority of persons who have already entered in service. As such any period of earlier service should be taken into account for determination of seniority in the later service only for some very compelling reasons which stand the test of reasonableness and on examination can be held to be free from arbitrariness.” In the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment in Moti’s Ram case supra, I am of the considered view that petitioner’s claim for consideration of military service for the purpose of benefits in service is without any merit. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. October 05, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE