SANSAR CHAND ATRI versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 881 · Decided: 02-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SANSAR CHAND A TRI 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. 
APRIL 2, 2002 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982 (as amended by 
Notification dated 22.9.1992)-Rules 2(c)(i)(ii) and (iv)-'Ex-servicemen' C 
treating of for the purpose of appointment in service-Held, person in Army 
having earned pension after putting in the requisite period of service before 
leaving the Army whether at his own request or being released by the employer 
on any ground would be treated 'ex-servicemen '-If person discharged at his 
own request is not treated so, the same would be arbitrary and discriminatory- D 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14. 
Interpretation of Statutes-Purposive interpretation-Provision or a 
statute should be interpreted in a purposive and reasonable manner. 
Words and Phrases-'Retired' and 'Retirement '-Meaning of in the E 
context of Rule 2(c)(i) of Pwyab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982 
(as amended by Notification dated 22.9. 1992). 
Appellant, who was discharged from Army at his own request, applied 
for appointment against a post reserved for ex-servicemen. Public Service 
Commission was not inclined to consider his candidature against the reserved F 
category post on the ground that he had been discharged from service at his 
own request and had retired. 
Appellant's writ petition claiming to be considered as ex-servicemen was 
dismissed on the ground that Rule 2(c)(iv) of Punjab Recruitment of Ex- G 
servicemen Rules, 1982 (as amended by Notification dated 22.9.1992) ' 
specifically excluded person, from the perview of the term 'ex-servicemen', 
who has been released from the service on his owl) request; and also since 
the appellant was neither retired nor released from the service, but was 
discharged on his own request. 
881 
H 
A 
882 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2002) 2 S.C.R. 
Hence the present appeal. 
The question for consideration before this Court in this appeal and 
connected appeals, was whether the appellants were 'ex-serivcemen' for the 
purpose of appointment under the Rules. 
B · 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. A person in the Army who has earned pension after putting 
in the requisite period of service before leaving the Army whether at his own 
request or on being released by the employer on any ground should be treated 
).. 
as an ex-serviceman who has retired from the Army. Such treatment is to be 
C meted out to all such persons irrespective of whether the nomenclature used 
is 'released' or 'discharged' or 'retired'. If a person discharged from the Army 
at his own request, is not treated as an ex-serviceman, it will create a class 
within a class without rational basis and therefore, becomes arbitrary and 
discriminatory. It will also defeat the purpose for which the provision for 
D reservation has been m~de. [886-H-887-A-C] 
2. In the context of the scheme of the provision, the provisions in the 
Rule should be interpreted in a purposive and reasonable manner so that the 
intent and purpose of the provision is served. (886-F) 
E 
3. High Court was not justified in placing reliance on sub-clause (iv) of 
Rule 2(c) and excluding the writ petitioners from the eligible category on that 
basis. Sub-clause (iv) has no application in the instant case for the reason that 
it applies to such of those persons who are released from service after specific 
period of engagement and become entitled to get gratuity. If a person, who 
p served in the armed forces, is released after being granted the benefit of 
pension, the case .is taken out of the purview of sub-clause (iv). The 
exclusionary words "Otherwise than at his own request" occurring in sub-
clause (iv) cannot, therefore, be relied upon to deny the benefit to the 
appellants. (887-C-E) 
G 
4. Though according to the terminology used in the Service Rules 
,, 
governing the armed forces there is a distinction between retirement and 
release/discharge, but, in the context of definition of ex-serviceman in Rule 
2(c) (ii) broader meaning has to be given to the word "retired" occurring in 
sub-clause (i). There is no rational basis for excluding those discharged or 
H released from service after earning pension. It is only after considerable period 
of satisfactory service a member of armed forces becomes entitled to pension. 
• 
SANARCHANDATRI v. STATE [DP. MOHAPATRA, J.J 
883 
The mere fact that after such long period of service he voluntarily quit the A

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