LPA No. 1271 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1271 of 2011 Date of Decision: 27.07.2011 Sri Chand (deceased) through his L.Rs. Nawal Singh and others ..Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present : Mr. J.S.Maanipur, Advocate, for the appellants. 1. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** M.M.KUMAR, .J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 11.08.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellants. The effort of the appellant to seek the review of the order has also failed and the order dated 09.02.2011 dismissing the review has also been challenged in the instant appeal. 2. The appellants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased-writ petitioner, have approached this Court for issuance of a direction to the respondents to count his entire military service rendered by him from 02.11.1962 to 05.04.1973 for the purposes of gratuity and other retiral benefits. Another prayer made in the petition was that in accordance with the policy instructions issued by the respondent-State, his son (writ petitioner) also deserves to be given compassionate appointment because he was boarded out of service on LPA No. 1271 of 2011 [2] medical ground. In that regard reliance was placed on the policy framed by the State on 23.11.1992 (Annexure P-4). 3. The learned Single Judge rejected both the claims on the ground that the writ petitioner-appellant could have claimed the benefit of military service only in respect of the emergency period of first emergency which was in operation from 26.10.1962 to 10.01.1968 as per the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 ( for brevity ' the Rules'), therefore, the benefit had already been granted to the appellant from 02.11.1962 to 10.01.1968. The second claim was rejected on the ground that the appellant was given additional compensation at the time of his retirement in accordance with the policy instructions dated 20.08.1992 (Annexure R-2) which pertains to the Transport Department where the appellant was working. It is appropriate to mention that the policy instructions dated 20.08.1992 have been framed specifically for grant of benefits to the drivers working in the Transport Department. Therefore, the appellant could not have made the claim under the general policy instructions dated 23.11.1992 (Annexure P-4) which provide for compassionate appointment to a dependent. Even otherwise, the policy instructions dated 23.11.1992 were found inapplicable because compassionate appointment could be given to one dependent person of the deceased family who might have become blind and invalidated while in harness. Thereafter, the appellant sought review of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 09.02.2011. LPA No. 1271 of 2011 [3] 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at a considerable length and are of the view that the instant appeal is devoid of merit. It has come on record that the appellant retired from service on 31.08.1997 and he filed the writ petition relatable to the instant appeal in the year 2000. The delay in approaching the Court would assume some significance because by challenging the order of retirement belatedly he has deprived the employer-respondent from availing the services which might have been rendered by him. Moreover, the policy instructions dated 20.08.1992 are applicable to the employees working in the Transport Department and in the wake of specific instructions the appellant cannot place reliance on the general instructions. The other issue has also been correctly decided inasmuch as the benefit of military service could be obtained only in respect of the period of first emergency and since he has rendered services from 02.11.1962 he has been rightly given the benefit upto 10.01.1968 when the first emergency came to an end. Therefore, no benefit could have been given for the services rendered beyond 10.01.1968. 5. Therefore, the appeal does not merit admission and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE 27.07.2011 'ravinder'