IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1669 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision:31.05.2011 Gaje Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satbir Singh Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner seeks that his military service during the time when there was national emergency ought to be counted in the service of Housing Board where he had joined on 26.03.1974. He had served in the military during the period of emergency from 11.09.1963 to 10.01.1968. Reciting the fact that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules of 1965 for the purpose of seniority and pay fixation, the impugned order was passed on 29.03.1988 allowing to the petitioner a deemed date of entry of service as on 01.08.1971. The date was the date of formation of the Board and if the emergency rules provided that the military service were Civil Writ Petition No.1669 of 1990 (O&M) - 2 - to be counted for seniority or pay fixation, such a claim could not be made to take effect even from a date when the Board itself was not in existence. That is precisely the relief which the petitioner wants. The Board has replied that they have themselves admitted the petitioner's entitlement to the application of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules of 1965 and the petitioner had also been given the benefits of pay fixation and seniority only on such basis. I am unable to accept the plea that there could be a seniority reckoned for the petitioner to count from a date when the Board was not in existence at all. Similarly even for pay fixation, the petitioner can earn only as many increments as he could be deemed to have served from the date of formation of the Board itself and not for any period earlier to the same. 2. I do not find any error in the impugned proceedings. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 31.05.2011 sanjeev