Sr. No. Date 4 % W.P.(C) 3368-69/2004 LC.A.R.'&ANR. .....Petitioners ThroughMr..J.Malclahiyar,proxycounselfor Mr. y .K Rao, Advocate versus sum RAM MALIK CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. KHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL ORDER 23.04.2004 ,Respondent CM 4463/04 in WPf3368-69/04 This applicationseeks recall of Court's order dated 15*^ April, 2004 wherebypetitioner'swrit petitionwas dismissedfor its failuretofilesomedocuments as requested by its counsel. This order dated IS"" April, 2(X)4 is recalled. Writ petition stands restored to its original number. Application stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. fC) 3368-69/2C04 This petition is directed against impugned Tribunal Order dated 26"' August, 2003, directing die petitioner to count the military service of respondent towards seniority by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Pal vs State of Harvana reported as 1985 (Supp) SCC 72 which held that persons released on compassionate grounds from military are ex-servicemen and are entitled as such to SHRI SHYAM SALES 02-03 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified Sr. No. -J Date all benetits availableto the ex-sei^iciemeBcategory/' in tiie Tribunalthat he had prior to joining the petitioner seen action in Indo-Pakwar of 1965. Reliancehas alsobeen placedby theTribunalon similarbenefits havingbeen grantedtoonePrashar. Therefasalof ICAR/petitionertotreat the militiarysei-vice.of respondent for senioxity led to the OA in the CAT. Furthermore we are.distressed to notethatthe obduracyof the petitioner/ICARin resistingthe legitimatestanceof the respondenton the wholly meritlessand hypertechnicalplea that an eXrserviceman who was dischargedon compassionategroundsis not entitledto benefitsof military service. Tlie petitioner'spersistencein pursuing this petitionis even more surprising when no back wages have been given and only notionalpromotionaffecting merely pensionaryand other terminalbenefitsgrantedby the impugnedorder of the tribunal. Furthermore the frivolous and indeed vexatious nature of this writ pe;tjtion is demonstratedeloquently by the following position of law laid down by the Hon'ble SupremeCourtin Raj Pal Shaima'scase (supra)in Para 6;- 'Tt is true that the principleof equalityin Article14of the Constitutiondoes not take away from the Statethe power of classifying persons for legitimate purposes. Every classificationin some degree is likely to produce some inequality £ind mere production of inequality is not enough. DifferentialtreatmentdcKs not per se constitute violationof Article 14. It denies equal protectiononly when thsie is no reasonablebasis for differenriaiion. If a ' lawdealsequallywith membersofa well-definedclass, it is not obnoxiousand itis not open to the chargeof denial ofequalprotectionon the groundthatithas no application to other pereons. What Article 14 prohibits is a class legislation and not reasonable classification for the purpose^of legislation. If the legislationtakes cai« to reasonablyclassifypersonsfor legislativepurposesand it dealsequallyv,dth all persons belongingtoa well-defined class, it is not open to the charge of denial of equal protectionon the ground that the law does not apply to other persons. In order, however, to pass the test of ^rmissibleclassificationtwoconditionsmustbe fulfilled; (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or thingsdiat are groupedtogetherfrom othersWft out of tho SHRI SHYAM SALES 02-03 •• / Sr. No. Date 4 Orders 'Af/^ '3 group, afid (2) that the differentia must have- a 'rational rational relationto the object sought to be s;hieved by tiie statute in question. In the instant cases the petitioner are all ex-military personnel. They have also been released from military service. All those pei-sons released from military service' constitute,one class and it is not possible to single out certain persons of the same class for differential treatment. There appe^s to be no reasonable classification between the persons who weie released on compassionate grounds and those who were released on other grounds and in this respect the petitioners have been deprived of the equal opportunity. The amendment, therefore, is violative of .Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and, therefore, bad." Since this decision was cited before and referred to by the CAT in its impugned judgment the petitioner was presumed to be aware of tlie law laid down by the Hon'ble Supieme Court and not expected to di'ag an ex-serviceman and its retired • employee to this Court on a petition whollydevoid of any substance. The Tribunal had rightly found that petitioner had refased to cOiint: this respondent's militai-yservice on aauntenable ground. Nothing has been shown or suggested that Tribunal order v/as wrong on any count. On the contrary the judgment of the Tribunal is entirely in accordance with the judgment of Supreme Court in Raj ' Pal Shanna's case (supra). The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. j\PmL 23, 2004 ak lAN.J MUKUL MUDG/\L, J SHRI SHYAM SALES 02-03