IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 1515 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 15th March, 2010. Pritam Singh Cheema Petitioner through Mr. R.K.Arora, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Anr. Respondents through Mrs. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 1515 and 8140 of 2009 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. The facts are, however, being extracted from CWP No. 1515 of 2009. The petitioner is an Ex-serviceman. He served the Indian Army from 23.11.1962 to 09.01.1968 which also includes the period of first emergency. After discharge from Army, the petitioner joined the respondent department as a Sub Inspector on 12.05.1975 on ad-hoc basis and his services were later on regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1977. It is not in dispute that while extending the benefit of Rule 5 of the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel [Reservation of Vacancies in Punjab State Non-Technical Services] Rules, 1968, the petitioner was assigned 03.11.1962 as the deemed date of civil employment. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether or not the petitioner is entitled to be granted retiral benefits including pension by counting the qualifying service from the deemed date of employment, i.e., 03.11.1962 or he is entitled to such benefits only from the date of actual appointment, i.e., 12.05.1975? Some-what similar controversy arose before a Division Bench of this Court in Dalbara Singh v State of Punjab & Ors. [LPA No. 11 of 2008] decided on October 4, 2008 while holding that the 1968 Rules are a piece of beneficial subordinate legislation and need to be interpreted and construed liberally to extend the benefits as far as possible so that the object for which the Rules were enacted could be achieved, the benefit under Rule 5 was expanded to include the retiral benefits including pension as well. It is so evident from Para 21[i] of the order which reads as follows:- “the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the appellant for fixation of his seniority under Rule 5 of the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel [ Reservation of Vacancies in Punjab State Non-Technical Services] Rules, 1968; the needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. However, the consequential monetary benefits, if any, to which the appellant may be held entitled to on fixation of his deemed date of appointment shall not be paid to him in view of direction No. [ii] issued hereinafter though such deemed date of appointment and notional pay fixation shall be taken into account while fixing the retiral benefits, including pension of the appellant”. [Emphasis applied]. Per contra, Mrs. Charu Tuli, learned Sr. DAG, Punjab, submits that Rule 5 contemplates the benefit of 'seniority' and 'pay' from the deemed date of appointment, i.e., the first opportunity which a candidate would have got had he not joined the military service. In my considered view, once the Rules create a fiction with regard to the date of appointment, and an Ex.-Army personnel on his appointment to 'civil service' is treated to have been appointed from such date for the purposes of 'seniority' and 'pay', such a deemed service can not be washed off for the purposes of retiral benefits. For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to grant the retiral benefits including pension to the petitioners by counting their qualifying service from their deemed dates of appointment. Let the needful be done within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Dasti. March 15, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE