IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. *** LPA No. 189 of 2008 (O&M). Date of decision: August 19, 2008. *** State of Punjab and others. Vs. Ashok Kumar *** CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur, CJ and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant. *** Present: Amol Rattan Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the appellants. *** T.S.Thakur, CJ (Oral) This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated December 05, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby Civil Writ Petition No.16035 of 1993 has been allowed, order dated June 06, 2006 passed by the Director State Transport, Punjab at Chandigarh quashed and the respondents directed to grant to the petitioner-respondent, herein, benefit of seniority by counting the period of military service rendered by him from 2.1.1964 to 9.1.1968 with consequential monetary benefits. Appearing for the appellant, Shri Amol Rattan Singh, Additional A.G. Punjab argued that the writ petition filed by respondent had claimed benefit of seniority not only during the first emergency period mentioned above but also for the period covered by the second emergency. He contended that the learned Single Judge had not while allowing the writ petition, made it clear whether the petitioner has been held entitled to the benefit of the service rendered during both the emergencies or only one of them. A confusion was therefore, likely to arise in the implementation of the direction issued by the Court. He submitted that this LPA No.189 of 2008 [2] appeal could be disposed of with a suitable clarification to the effect that the benefit due to the petitioner-respondent herein, shall be confined to the period between the date on which the petitioner joined service in the Air Force i.e. 2.1.1964 and 10.1.1968 when the first emergency was lifted. There is in our opinion, no confusion in the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. A careful reading of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, would show that the petitioner has been held entitled to the benefit of seniority during the first emergency period only to be reckoned from the date he joined service. This is apparent even from the operative portion of the judgment which reads as under:- “The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of seniority to the petitioner, by counting the period of military service, rendered by him, from 02.01.1964 to 09.01.1968, during the proclamation of Ist National emergency, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment and if he is found entitled to any monetary benefit, on account of fixation of such seniority, the same be released to him, within a period of two months thereafter”. In the light of the specific direction issued by the learned Single Judge, confining the grant of relief only to the period mentioned in the paragraph extracted above, we see no possibility of any confusion arising in the implementation of the said order, to call for any clarification. There is, in our opinion, no gain saying that since the direction is limited to the period commencing from 2.1.1964 to 9.1.1968, the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition shall have to be understood accordingly. The apprehension of Mr. Amol Rattan Singh that the order LPA No.189 of 2008 [3] may be understood to be granting relief even for the second emergency period i.e. from 3.12.1971 to 3.7.1977, is not, in that view, well founded. In so far as the admissibility of the benefit of seniority for the Ist Emergency period is concerned, Mr. Amol Rattan Singh feebly argued that the same is not admissible in the light of the observations made in Jang Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and others-1997(3) RSJ 464. We see no merit in that contention. There is no reason why the benefit of seniority for the service rendered by an employee during the first emergency period should be denied to him if otherwise permissible especially because Rule 4 of the Punjab National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1964 expressly grants such a benefit. The decision of this Court in Jang Singh’s case does not, in our opinion, lay down a contrary proposition. With the above observation, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. (T. S. THAKUR ) CHIEF JUSTICE August 19, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) Malik JUDGE