CHITTARANJAN SINGH CHIMA AND ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1010 · Decided: 06-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
CHITIAMNJAN SINGH CHIMA AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 6, 1997 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965: 
Seniority-Service rendered in Military-Whether could be computed for 
seniority in Civil Service and resultant consequential benefits-Held; Seniority 
of service rendered in Military cannot be extended to the personnel like the 
appellants since they were not recruited during emergency to whom the benefit 
of seniority and consequential benefits were given. 
Ram Janam Singh v. State of U.P., (1994] 2 SCC 622, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2474 of 
1981. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.12.80 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 2860 of 1979. 
AP. Mohanty and S.K. Sabbarwal for the Appellant. 
Ranbir Y adar for R.S. Suri for the Respondents. 
F 
The following order of the Court was delivered : · 
The appellants, Dalip Singh Sidhu and Chittaranjan Singh Chima 
were enrolled in Indian Air Force in December 7, 1957 and September 3, 
1959 respectively. After completing 15 years of service, they were released 
from the Air Force in their ranks as Sergeants on January 25, 1974 and 
G December 31, 1974 respectively. When recruitment to the posts of sports 
personnel was advertised, they came to be appointed as junior Sports 
Officers by the Punjab Government on September 30, 1974 and October 
29, 1976 respectively. They filed Writ Petition no. 2860/79 in the High Court 
claiming past service in the Air Force as demobilised defence personnel. 
H The Division Bench by Judgment dater( December 9, 1980 following its 
1010 
-
,___ 
·.~ 
' 
C.S. CHIMAv. SfATE 
1011 
earlier judgment in State of Punjab v. Pritam Chand, LP A No. 401 of (1976) A 
dismissed the writ petition. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
Shri A.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants, contended 
that the Government had applied the Punjab demobilized Armed Force 
Personnel (Reservation of vacancies in Punjab ~tate Non-Technical Ser-
vice) Rules, 1977 dated April 20, 1977 with retrospective effect dated 
February 28, 1973. Rule 2(c) reads as under: 
"2{ c) 'release' means (with its grammatical variations) release as 
B 
per the scheduled year of release after a spell of service, from the 
Armed Forces of the Union but does not include release during C 
or at the end of training, or during or at the end of short service 
Commission granted to cover periods such training prior to being 
taken in actual service or release on account of misconduct or 
inefficiency or at the request of a released Indian Armed Forces 
Personnel himself." 
D 
He contends that the said rule has no application to the per~ons who 
were appointed before the 1977 Rules came into force~ The High Court, 
therefore, was not right in denying the benefit of the past service and the 
consequential benefits ensured thereunder. The question is : whether the 
appellants are entitled to the benefit of their past service rendered in the E 
Military for the computation of their seniority in the civil service and 
resultant consequential benefits . 
. The Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 
1965, the rules under which the appellants came to be appointed, define 
"military service" to mean enrolled or commissioned service in any of the 
p 
three wings of the Indian Armed Forces (including service as a warrant 
officer) rendered by a person during the period of Operation of the 
Proclamation of Emergency made by the President under Article 352 of 
the Constitution of the 26th October, 1962 or such other service as may 
hereafter be declared as military service for the purposes of these rules. 
Any period of military training followed by military service shall also be .G 
reckoned as military service." It would, thus, be seen that for the purpose 
of military service, it would be an officer enrolled or commissioned in any 
of the three wings of the Indian Armed Force and rendered service during 
the period of operation of the proclamation of emergency and such of the 
military service as may be declared thereafter by the Government for the H 
1012 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 
A purpose of the entitlement under the Rule. Since the appellants came to 
be appointed under this, they have not been given any benefit of reckoning 
of the military service for the purpose of seniority and consequential 
benefits i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.