DHAYANAND ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 533 · Decided: 12-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
DHAYANAND ETC. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 
(.J.S. VERMA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Punjab Re-Organisation Act, 1966 : Ss.2(g) and 88. 
Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession Rules, 
1965/Punjab Recntitment of Ex-se1vicemen Rules, 1982: 
Conditions of Se1vice of Union Te1Titory of Chandigarh Employees 
Rules, 1966 : Rules 2, 3 and 4. 
A 
B 
c 
Ex-servicemen-Re-employed in Services of Union Tenitory of Chan-
D 
digarh subsequent to 1.11.1966--Claim for benefit of earlier milit01y service 
regarding seniority, promotion, pension etc. under 1965 Rules-Held, 1965 
Rules continued to apply to eligible ex-service Re-employed in Services of 
Union Tenitory of Chandigarh after 1. 11.1966. 
The appellants and the writ petitioners, who were ex- servicemen and E 
were re-employed in the services of the Union Territory of Chandigarh 
subsequent to 1.1.1966, claimed benefit of the Punjab government National 
Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 for purposes of increments, seniority 
promotion, pension etc. Though G.O. No. 1023.11.1(7)-87/5025 dated 
19.3.1987 issued by the Union Territory Administration, had provided that · F 
the benefit of military service in accordance with the 1965 Rules would be 
available to ex-servicemen, but subsequently, this view was altered in G.O. 
No. 27/1/3/92 - 18(7)/10935 dated 2.6.1992. The Central Administrative 
Tribunal and the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the 1965 Rules 
did not apply to appointees in services of the Union Territory after G 
1.1.1966. Aggrieved, the employees tiled the appeals by special leave and 
the writ petit!::-
It was contended on behalf of the Union Territory that the benefit of 
the 1965 Rules was available only to the ex-service men employed prior to 
1.11.1966, since they were appointed ill' the State of Punjab and carried H 
533 
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A with them the benefit which had already accrued to them. 
B 
c 
Allowing the appeals and the writ petition of the employees, this 
Court 
HELD : 1.1. By virtue of the provisions of Section 88 -of the Punjah 
Reorganisation Act, 1966, Notifications Nos. S03267, SO 3268 and SO 
3269 dated 1.11.1966 issued by the Government of India and Rules 2, 3 and 
4 of the Conditions of Service of Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees 
Rules, 1966, the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) 
Rules, 1965 continued to apply in the Union Territory of Chandigarh even 
after 1.11.1966 till modified, changed or repudiated by the Union Territory 
Administration and they continued to apply to the employees appointed in 
the Union Territory after 1.11.1966, who were eligible for the benefit of 
those rules. (538-G] 
1.2. The Punjab Government .National Emergency (Concession) 
D Rules, 1965 fall within the definition of "law" in Section 2(g) of the Punjab 
Reorganisation Act, 1966 and in view of provisions of s.88 of the Punjab 
Reorganisation Act, 1966, continued in force and were effective in the 
Union Territory of Chandigarh until and unless modified, changed or 
repudiated by the Union Territory Administration. [536-G] 
E 
State of Punjab and Ors. v. Balbir Singh and Ors., [1976) 3 SCC 242, 
relied on. 
1.3. The Government of India issued Notifications No. SO 3267, SO 
3268 and SO 3269 dated 1.11.1966 and the conditions of service of Union 
F 
territory of Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1966 were framed by the Presi-
dent of India, dealing with conditions of service of the employees of the 
Union Territory of Chandigarh. Though by virtue ofRule2 of1966 Rules, the 
Rules applicable to the Central Civil Services were made applicable to the 
employees in the corresponding services under the administrative control of 
G the admi~istrator of the Union Territory, Rule 3 thereof made inapplicable 
the 1966 Rules to probation, confirmation, seniority and promotion in 
respect of employees for whom the Administrator of the Union Territory was 
authorised under Notification No. 3267 to make rules. The effect of the 
notifications, the 1966 Rules and the express provisions made in Rule 3 
therein, is that the employees of the Union Territory to posts in class II, 
H Class III and class IV services under the administrative control of the Ad-
-
... 
DHAYANAND v, U.0.1. (J.S. VERMA, J.) 
535 
ministrator of the Union Territory in respect of whom the rule making power A 
was delegated by the President of India to the Administrator of the Union 
Territory,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.