PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA AND ANR. versus SURJIT SINGH BRAR

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 723 · Decided: 18-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
SURJIT SINGH BRAR 
NOVEMBER 18, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law 
Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965: 
Rules 2 and 4. 
Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in 
the Punjab Non-Technical Service) Rules, 1968; 
Ex-servicemen quota-Claim for benefit of increments and seniority 
B 
c 
on re-employment in State service on the basis of service during second D 
Emergency (1971 War)-Respondent joined the Army in May 1963 and 
was discharged from military service in September 197 3-Appointed in 
1979 as L.D.C. against ex-servicemen quota and granted benefit of 
increments and seniority in terms of Rules 2 and 4 of 1965 Rules-
Subsequently realising the mistake that respondent was not entitled to 
increments, the benefit was withdrawn in 1988-Suit by respondent dismissed E 
by trial Court-Appellate court and High Court allowed the claim-Held, 
in order to avail concession on the basis of services during second 
Emergency, the candidate must be a government servant having been called 
for the military service during the second Emergency-The person who 
joined the sen•ice during period of first Emergency is not entitled to claim F 
the benefit of the period of service rendered during the second Emergency-
Respondent was not entitled to the increments which were rightly withdrawn. 
Ex Captain A.S. Parmer and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., 
(1968) LAB IC 894, relied on. 
(Ex. Capt.) Randhir Singh Dhull v. S.D. Bhambri and Ors., (1981 ( 
2 sec 338, held no longer a good law. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 15073 of 
G 
1m. 
H 
723 
724 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.10.93 of the Punjab and 
8 
c 
D 
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 896 of 1993. 
Swarup Singh and Ms. Kirti Misra for the Appellants. 
Pradeep Misra for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned 
single judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana made on October 7, 
1993 in RSA No. 896/93. 
The admitted facts are that the respondent had joined military service 
after the declaration of Indio-China War. Emergency was declared on 
October 26, I 962. The respondent joined the Army on May 25, 1963. The 
Government of Punjab exercising the power under proviso to Article 309 . 
of the Constitution passed the Punjab Government National Emergency 
(Concession) Rules, 1965 ( for short, the Rules). The Rules provided for 
E benefit of pay and seniority to ex-servicemen re-employed in civil services. 
The respondent was discharged from military service on September 24, 
1973 and thereafter, he was appointed in January, 1979 as L.D.C. in ex-
servicemen quota. He was granted the benefit of the increments and 
seniority in terms of Rules 2 and 4 of the Rules. Subsequently, realising 
F the mistake that he was not entitled to two increments after the lndo-
China Emergency was lifted, the same was recalled by order dated 
21.4. I 987. After issuing the notice, they withdraw the benefit on February 
18, 1988. Calling in question, the said action of the appellants, the 
respondent filed a civil suit on April 27, 1988. It may be relevant, at this 
juncture, to note that during lndo-Bangla War, the Government had 
G declared the Emergency on December 3, 1971 which was lifted on March 
22, I 973. Consequently,' the respondent has claimed the benefit of seniority 
and pay for the period of service rendered during the period of second 
Emergency. The trial Court dismissed the suit but on appeal the Additional 
District Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit and granted the 
benefit of two increments. When second appeal was filed, the High Court 
H dismissed the same. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
PB. STA TE ELECTRICITY BD. v. S.S. BRAR 
725 
The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that A 
under the Rules, the personnel who rendered the military service during 
Emergency of lndo-China war alone is entitled to the benefit. Though the 
respondent continued after the lifting of the first Emergency and during 
the period of second Emergency, namely, lndo-Bangala War, the period 
of said service would not be ~ounted under the Rules. We find force in the 
contention. This question, in the first instanc

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