HAV BHAGAT SINGH, ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 433 · Decided: 15-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
f 
HAV BHAGAT SINGH, ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ETC. 
MARCH, 15, 1996 
· [J.S. VERMA, S.P. BHARUCHA AND K. VENKATASWAMY, JJ.) 
Service Law : 
A 
B 
Punjab National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965-Rule 
:?:-Military Service-Benefit of counting Military Service-For those who were C 
commissioned during emergency-Amendment notification in 1976 excluding 
those who had been enrolled prior to emergency-Subsequent circular in 1991 
by State restricting applicability of Notification to those who joined after 
Amendment-Held, classification _valid and reasonable. 
The Appellant had joined Military Service in 1959 and served upto D 
1976. In 1978, he joined the Government Service in the State of Haryaua. 
By Rule 2 of Punjab National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 as 
adopted by the State of Haryana, "Military Service" meant the sei:vice 
· rendered during operation of the emergency in 1962. By a retrospective 
amendment in 1976, the State of Haryana restricted the meaning of E 
. "Military Service" and excluded those who had bee!' enrolled and commis-
sioned before the proclamation of emergency and had served during its 
operation. The amendment was struck down as ultra vires in Ex Capt. K. C 
Arora & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in [1984] 3 SCC 281. 
The validity of amended definition was again challenged in Dhan 
Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1991] Supp. 2 SCC 190. The court 
held that the State of Haryana could amend the Rules and withdraw the 
concession in exercise of the power conferred under Article 309 of the 
constitution and that the differential was intelligible and had a direct 
nexus to the object sought to be achieved and upheld the same. 
Thereafter the Respondent-State issued a circular wherein after 
referring to Dhan Singh's case, the benefits of military service was decided 
F 
G 
not to be withdrawn from those ex-service men who had joined the State 
service prior to the amendment of the Rules, even if they had joined the 
military service prior to 1962, and it was made applicable to those who H 
433 
434 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A joined after issue of Notification. 
B 
Before this Court, Appellant challenged the aforesaid circular and 
also prayed for reconsideration of the judgment in Dhan Singh's case on 
the ground that there was discrimination amongst the homogenous class 
of servicemen, that by issuing the circular the State was purporting to 
regulate the discharge of military personnel without taking into considera· 
lion the fact that it was necessary to maintain a minimum strength thereof 
and that regardless of the curtailment of definition of military service, 
some persons remained unaffected and so there was discrimination. 
C 
Dismissing the Appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. There is a clear and intelligible difference between those 
who had already chosen the armed forces as a career when the emergency 
was declared and those who, in response to the nations' call, joined the 
armed forces after the emergency was declared. The grant of benefits to 
D the latter class while denying them to the former class is in no way 
arbitrary or discriminatory. [438-F-G; 439-A] 
',c 
Ex. Captain. KC. Arora & Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors., (1984] 3 
SCC 281 and Dhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1991] Supp. 
E 2 sec 190, referred to. 
1.2. The Rules did not confer an indefeasible right on all persons who 
had served in the armed forces during the emergency. Only those of them 
who had joined the State Governmenl's service while the unamended Rules 
operated acquired a vested right, by reason of their having accepted the 
p 
offer made thereby, which could not be defeated by the amendment. [ 439-8] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7390 of 
1994 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.6.93 of the Punjab & Haryana 
G High Court in C.W.P. No. 6886 of 1993. 
S.M. Hooda and N.S. Bisht for tbe Appellants. in C.A. No. 7390/94. 
S.M. Hooda and N.S. Bisht for the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 571/94. 
H 
I.S. Goyal for Ms. Indu Malhotra, for the Respondents. 
' 
( . 
H.B. SINGH v. STATE (BHARUCHA,J.] 
435 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
- t 
BHARUCHA, J. The appeal aforementioned impugns the order of 
summary dismissal of a writ petition filed by the appellant in the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana. Though the order only says "dismissed", it was 
clearly passed by reason of the judgment of this Court in Dhan Sin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.