Civil Revision No. 3211 of 1994 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3211 of 1994 Date of Decision: 01.08.2011 *** Gurcharan Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. S.C. Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab. ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner-decree holder is aggrieved with order dated 21.4.1994 passed by the learned Executing Court by virtue of which the execution application preferred by him has been dismissed being satisfied. The undisputed facts leading to the institution of present civil revision, be recapitulated first. The petitioner joined the Military service on 29.10.1963 during the period when National Emergency was in operation. He served in Military upto 1.4.1976. It is relevant to mention here that National Emergency was declared on October 26,1962 and was lifted on 10.1.1968. On December 3,1971 Government again declared Emergency, which remained in force till the year 1977. Admittedly, the petitioner served in the Military during the second emergency as well. After his release from the Army, the petitioner joined civil Department. Raising the plea that military service, rendered by him during the emergency and prior to his appointment, be counted towards increment, seniority and pension etc., as per Rules and Regulations provided under Punjab Government National Emergency Concession Rules, 1965 (hereinafter, referred to as Rules, 1965), he represented before the Department, but his request was turned down vide order dated 8.1.1988, which the petitioner challenged by filing a civil suit. The said suit was decreed on 20.9.1990, in the following terms:- Civil Revision No. 3211 of 1994 2 “In view of my above findings on the above issues, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs to the effect that the order dt. 8.1.88 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Rural and Development and Panchayats Government of Punjab, Chandigarh is illegal, null and void and the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of military service rendered by him towards seniority and increments etc. Decree sheet be prepared and file be consigned.” Thereafter, the respondent-Department preferred first appeal before the Court below and vide judgment and decree dated 17.9.1991 the same was dismissed. Claiming that he has not been given the benefit of military service rendered during the second emergency, the decree holder filed an execution petition. The JDs pleaded that in pursuance to the aforesaid decree, which speaks of grant of benefit of military service as per Rules, 1965, the decree holder is entitled to get the benefit of military service rendered during first emergency alone. As said above, the learned Executing Court considered the submissions and observed that as per the decree the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of military service rendered during first emergency, which he has been granted and accordingly dismissed the execution being satisfied. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that, as per the decree, the decree holder is entitled to get the benefit of whole military service rendered by him towards seniority and increments and the learned Executing Court below has fallen in error while concluding that he is entitled to the benefit of service rendered during first National emergency. On the other hand, learned State counsel has contended that the petitioner was held entitled to the benefit of military service as per Rules, 1965 and in this view of the matter, his execution petition has rightly been dismissed being satisfied. The arguments have been scanned. It is apparent from the perusal of the decree passed by the learned trial Court dated 20.9.1990, as reproduced above, that there is no specific mention therein that the plaintiff is entitled to the military service rendered during both the emergencies Civil Revision No. 3211 of 1994 3 towards his seniority, increments and pension etc. However, a conjoint reading of judgments passed by the Courts below, it is specific that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of military service rendered by him during National Emergency according to National Emergency Rules, 1965. Now the question arises for determination is as to whether the decree holder is entitled to the military service rendered during both the emergencies or not? However, the said issue is no more res integra. Similar was the situation in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & Anr. Vs. Surjit Singh Brar AIR 1997 SC 2271, wherein the respondent therein joined the military service during first emergency and continued during second emergency and later joined the civil post. In that case it was held that the service rendered during first emergency can only be considered for granting benefit. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Jacob, Labour Inspector Vs. State of Punjab 1999(1) SCT 111. In view of the legal position above, once the law itself does not permit for grant of benefit of military service rendered during 2nd emergency, it cannot be said that it was spirit of the decree to grant the same to the plaintiff. It is settled that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree, but it is made clear that this situation has arisen only on account of the fact that there was no specific mention in the decrees about the manner in which the plaintiff is entitled to get benefit of military service rendered during first emergency or for both the emergencies. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the learned Executing Court is perfectly legal and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 01, 2011 Jiten