LexR. K. BARWALAND OTHERS versus STATE OF HIMACHAL .PRADESH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2017] 9 S.C.R. 671 R. K. BARWALAND OTHERS v. STATE OF HIMACHAL .PRADESH AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 11060of2017) AUGUST 25, 2017 [A.K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.[ A B Armed forces -,- Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel C (ReservatiOn of Vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh State Non- Technical Services) Rules, 1972 - 1:5(1) providing benefit of past ·service rendered in armed forces to ex-servicemen for the purpose of fixation of seniority and pay in civil employment - Challenge to - If such a benefit of counting past service rendered in the armed forces was admissible only to those personnel who joined the jorces D during the period of Emergency and not to ex-servicemen who had joined the armed forces at the time of peace - Held: Rules giving benefit of service in armed forces to those ex-servicemen who joined during Emergency are pe~fectlyjustified - Call of service to nation during war period is on a totally different jooting than joining army when the country is not facing any such foreign aggression - Persons joining armed forces at that time, sacrificing their career, to be treated E as a separate class by extending tl1em the benefit in the matter o/ seniority as. well - However, those who joined the armed forces during peace times, they do so in look out of a career and joined such services of their own volition - They join the armed forces as a profession like any other - Thus, the two categories of ex- servicemen form two separate classes and are not equal to each other - Service law - Reservation. F Service law - Armed forces - Reservation - Benefit of past service rendered in armed forces to ex-servicemen - Held: There G exists an intelligible criterion for providing quota to ex-servicemen - The object is to rehabilitate the ex-servicemen which can· be achieved by providing reservations to them - Rules reserving a particular quota, within reasonable limits does not ojfend the provisions of Art.14 - Constitution of India -Art; 14. H 671 672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R. A Service law - Seniority - Normal rnle of - Depprture fi·om -: B Held:' Seniority of an employee in service is to be determined with reference to the date of his entry in the service, which is consistent with the requiremer1t of Arts. 14 and 16 - There have to be very weighty reasons for departure fimn this normal rule affixing the seniority - Constiiution of India - Arts. 14, 16. .. Armed forces - Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh State Non- Technical Services) Rules, 1972 - Respondent, an ex~service man appointed as peon against unreserved posi, denied benefit available c to the ex-servicemen under the 1972 Rules - Respondent approached Tribunal by filing 0.A. which was allowed - Writ petition by State, dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: The administrative instructions issued by Government stated that when a released Army Personnel has been appointed against the general un-reserved vacancy in the first instance, he should be given an option at the D time of first appointment to accept a reserved vacancy, even if it occurs subsequent to his appointment '-- However, such an option ·was never provided to the respondent - Respondent cannot be .made to suffer due to· reminiscence on part of the State Government - No' error found in ·the judgment of High Court. E Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: Civil Appeal Nos. 11060, 11061 and 11062 of 2017 1.1 There exists an intelligible criterion for providing quota f to ex-servicemen. The object is to rehabilitate the ex-servicemen which can be achieved by providing reser.vations to them. Therefore, insofar as provision made in the Rules reserving a particular quota, within reasonable limits is concerned that is permitted and does not offend the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. There is an intelligible differentia having nexus with G the objective sought to be achieved. Likewise, provision in the Rules for protecting the. pay is also held to be permissible. [Para 13) [686-F-G) H Ram Janam Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (1994) 2 SCC 622 : [1994) 1 SCR 316 ; Chittranjan R. K. BARWAL AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HJMACHAL 673 PRADESH AND OTHERS · Singh Chima and Another v. State of Punjab and Others A .(1997) 11 SCC 447 : [1997] 1 SCR 1010 ; Narendra Nath Pandey and Other vs. State of U.P. and others . AIR (1988) SC 1648 : (19
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.