IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15990 of 2010 Date of decision : 15.03.2011 Kamalpartap Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Nirmal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. Permod Kohli, J. Petitioner joined the Indian Army on 24.7.1963 during the period of emergency and was discharged from Army on 11.9.1976. He served in the Indian Army for 04 years and 19 days. On being relieved from Army, the petitioner joined the department of Food and Supplies, Punjab as Sub-Inspector and at Fazilka on 8.8.1969 on regular basis against the sanctioned post. He was further promoted as Inspector, Food and Supplies and Assistant Food and Supplies Officer. Pension of the petitioner has been sanctioned vide PPO No.138844/Pb, dated 1.4.2001. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been granted the benefit of Army service for the purposes of increments, seniority and pension as provided under Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965. It is not in dispute that the controversy in the case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in case of Bhagwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, (CWP No.4947 of 2002, decided on 17.2.2009) wherein the following observations have been given:- “The stand of the State in the reply is also based upon the interpretation of Rule 4(3). From the bare reading of the aforesaid provision quoted hereinabove, it appears that the stand of the State is totally unwarranted. Rule 4(1) confers the benefits upon an ex-army personnel for counting the period of army service rendered during the emergency for purposes of counting increments, seniority and pension provided such army personnel refunds the bonus, gratuity received in respect of military service to the State Govt. Sub rule (3) of Rule 4 CWP No.15990 of 2010 confers an additional benefit of taking into consideration even the period between the discharge of the army personnel and the date of joining of service provided the gap is upto one year and in special circumstances for the three years. Sub rule (3) does not control the sub rule 1. It is only an additional benefit even for the period the ex-army personnel remained out of service upto one year without any special circumstances and upto three years with special circumstances. Sub Rule 3 of Rule 4 does not in any manner take away the benefit confirmed under Rule 1, which is absolute in nature. Thus, the stand of the respondents to deny this benefit of service rendered in army during the period of emergency is based upon total misinterpretation and misconstruction of rule 4(3). In the present case the gap between discharge from service and rejoining of civil service is more than five year. The petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit of this period, however, he is entitled to the benefits for the service rendered between 06.03.1964 to 18.02.1966 to be counted for purposes of increments, seniority and pension. I am also persuaded to take this view by a judgment of this Court dated 06.07.1999 passed in CWP No.7254 of 1998. This petition is accordingly allowed and respondents are directed to count the period of service from 06.03.1964 to 18.02.1966 rendered by the petitioner in army for purposes of increments, seniority and pension etc. Let the process of consideration be completed within three months and consequential retiral benefits be released to the petitioner within the aforesaid period with interest @ 6% from the date of retirement till the amount is actually paid.” In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to count the period of service rendered by the petitioner in the Army during emergency w.e.f. 24.7.1963 to 11.8.1967 for the purposes of increments, seniority and pension etc. That the claim of the petitioner be settled within a period of three months and consequent benefits be released with interest at the rate of 6% commencing on expiry of three months from the date of retirement till the amount is actually paid. ( Permod Kohli ) Judge 15.03.2011 sd 2