C.W.P. No. 11942 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11942 of 2010 Date of Decision 09.07.2010 Harbans Singh -----Petitioner Versus The Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others --Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate Mr. Sudhir Nar, Advocate for the petitioner 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. Kumar, J. Petitioner is an Ex-serviceman. He retired from the Military Service on 01.03.1979 and was granted pensionary benefits along with gratuity amount of Rs. 2172.10 as he had rendered service as army man from 27.12.1963 till 01.03.1979. He joined the Punjab State Electricity Board as peon from where he sought voluntary retirement on 30.04.2002. Petitioner has approached this Court for challenging the validity of Rule 8A(2)(ii). The aforesaid Rule reads as under: ii. Pension- The period of military service mentioned (i) shall count forward pension only in the case of appointments to permanent services or posts, subject to the C.W.P. No. 11942 of 2010 -2- tell, as conditions:- (1)The person concerned should not have earned a pension under military rules in respect of the military service in question. (2) Any bonus or gratuity paid in respect of military service by the defence authorities shall have to be refunded to the State Government. (3)The period, if any, between the date of discharge from military service and the date of appointment to any service or post under the Government shall count for pension, provided such period does not exceed one year. Any period exceeding one year but not exceeding three years may also be allowed to count for pension in exceptional cases under the orders of the Government. A perusal of the aforesaid Rules makes it clear that the period of service rendered during emergency, shall count for pension in the case of appointment to permanent service/ post subject to the conditions that the concerned person should not have earned pension under military service in respect of the military service in question. It is admitted position that for the military service rendered from 27.12.1963 to 01.03.1979, the petitioner has earned pensionary benefits. On 21.08.2009, the respondent No.4-District Sainik Welfare Officer, Fatehgarh Sahib sent a letter to the petitioner intimating him that since he was getting pension from army, he was C.W.P. No. 11942 of 2010 -3- not entitled to the benefit of service during the emergency period. After perusal of record and hearing of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that there is no legal infirmity in Rule 8(A)(2). Once the petitioner has earned pension in respect of the service rendered by him in the army, then for the same service, he cannot be granted benefit of pension. In Civil Service, the Rule aims at avoiding grant of double benefit of pension to the petitioner. There is, thus, no merit in the petition. It does not warrant admission. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE July 9, 2010 Atul