IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.2495 of 2010 Date of decision : 19.5.2011 Shri Chand Yadav ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.S.K.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner claims that the benefit of military service has not been granted to him while commuting his pension. On an earlier occasion the petitioner had approached this Court by way of C.W.P.No.19487 of 2008 in which the following order was passed :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the legal notice (Annexure P-3) submitted by the petitioner to the respondents has not been denied till date. He has further stated that the petitioner will be satisfied if the said legal notice is decided in the light of judgment dated 31.10.2007 (Annexure P-5) within a stipulated period. C.W.P.No.2495 of 2010 -2- Respondent No.2 i.e. the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Sector-17, Chandigarh is directed to take a final decision by passing a speaking order on the legal notice (Annexure P-3) in the light of judgment dated 31.10.2007 (Annexure P-5) within a period of two months from the date of receiving of this order.” Subsequent thereto the respondents have passed a speaking order denying the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the benefit of annual increment and seniority had already been granted to him vide order dated 17.10.1996. The claim has been rejected further on the ground that since the petitioner never impugned the order dated 17.10.1996, he is debarred from raising any other plea subsequently at this belated stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Rule 4 (iii) and 5 of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 to contend that the grant of increment and seniority are independent benefits which flow from the rules and the service which the petitioner had rendered in response to the call of emergency from 1962 to 1968. He contends that this service ought to have been counted to grant pension and other retiral benefits. The respondents have merely denied it on the ground that he had not impugned the grant of the benefit of increment and seniority which was conferred upon him in 1996 and not on account of any provision in the rules. He contends that the pensionary benefits are independent from other benefits and therefore he was not required to assail that order of 1996 C.W.P.No.2495 of 2010 -3- and can do so now, as it is a recurring loss to him. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the impugned order does not address the fundamental issue that has been raised by the petitioner. Consequently, the same is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondents to take a decision afresh by adverting to the rules on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and which have been referred to in the foregoing paragraphs. Disposed of. 19.5.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss