RSA No. 3577 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3577 of 2005 Decided on :19 -03-2009 State of Haryana through PWD B&R Br., Chandigarh and others ....Appellants VERSUS Sukhpal Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. O.P.Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana. None for the respondent. MAHESH GROVER, J Heard learned counsel for the appellants. No one is present on behalf of the respondent. The facts reveal that civil service of the plaintiff-respondent was regularised w.e.f 1.1.1980 and prior to that he had served Indian Army from 11.9.56 to 13.9.71. In the suit which he had filed he had claimed the benefit of his Army service to be counted for the benefit of civil service such as seniority etc. Appellants-defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff- respondent. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “whether the respondent is entitled to claim the benefit of Army service towards civil employment”. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on case titled as 'Dhan Singh & ors versus State of Haryana & Ors' 1991(1) SLR RSA No. 3577 of 2005 2 200 wherein it has been held as under:- “12. The young persons who have joined the military service during the national emergency and those who were already in service and due to exigencies of service had been compelled to serve during the emergency form two distinct classes. The appellants and the petitioners who joined the army before the proclamation of emergency, had chosen the career voluntarily and their service during emergency was as a matter of course. They had no option or intention of joining the government service during the period of emergency as they were already serving in the army. The persons who enrolled or commissioned during the emergency, on the other hand, had on account of the call of the nation joined the army at that critical juncture of national emergency to save the motherland by taking a greater risk where danger to the life of a member of the armed was higher. They include persons who could have pursued their studies, acquired higher qualifications ad joined a higher post and those who could have joined the government service before attaining the maximum age prescribed and thereby gained seniority in the service. Forgoing all these benefits and avenues, they joined the army keeping in view the needs of the country and assurances contained in conditions of service in executive instructions. The latter form a class by themselves and they cannot be equated to those who joined the army before the proclamation of the emergency. Benefits had been promised to such persons who heeded to the call of the RSA No. 3577 of 2005 3 nation at that critical juncture. Older man by joining the military service lost chance of joining other Government service and when joins such service on release from the army younger man had already occupied the post. To remove the hardship, the benefit of military service was sought to be given to those young persons who were enrolled/commissioned during the period of emergency forgoing their job opportunities. The differentia is, therefore, intelligible and has a direct nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. The petitioners cannot, therefore, challenge the rule as discriminatory or arbitrary. Such of those appellants and the petitioners who have joined the army before the proclamation of the emergency are not, therefore, entitled to the benefit of military service as per the Emergency Concessions Rules. 13. Since the proviso to Rule 4(ii) has already been struck down in Raj Pal Sharma's case (supra) such of the appellants who had been released from the military service on compassionate grounds are entitled to the benefits of their military service.” In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the present controversy is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhan Singh's case (supra) which have been reproduced as above. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent is dismissed. March 19, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge