STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. versus SHRI OM PRAKASH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 366 · Decided: 10-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
V. 
SHRI OM PRAKASH 
JULY I 0, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965-
C Rule 4(iii)-Pension-Entitlement of-Claimant serving in Armed Forces during 
period when emergency remained proclaimed, discharged and thereafter 
appointed in other service--Gap between the date of discharge and the date 
of appointment more than three years, hence, in terms of Rule 4(iii) claimant 
not entitled to pensionary benefits. 
D 
Respondent rendered services in the Armed Forces during the period 
when emergency was proclaimed. He was discharged from Armed Forces 
on 13.6.1967. In 1972 he was appointed in other service. Respondent filed 
writ petition for claim of pension. Appellant-State submitted that in terms 
of Rule 4(iii) of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) 
E Rules, 1965 since there was a gap of more than three years between date 
of discharge from Armed Forces and his date of appointment in other 
service, he was not entitled to pension. High Court held that the respondent 
was entitled to pension in terms of Rule 4(iii). Hence the present appeal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In tl!rms of Rule 4(iii) of the Punjab Government 
National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 for the purpose of working 
out the entitlement to pension, the p_eriod if any between the date of 
discharge from military service and the date of appointment to any service 
G or post under the Government shall count for pension automatically if such 
peri~d does not exceed one year. But if the period exceeds one year but 
does not exceed three years, the period may be allowed to be counted in 
exceptional cases. The Government must pass an order holding that the 
case was an exceptional one and, therefore, instead of period of one year, 
period upto three years could be reckoned for the purpose of computation. 
II 
366 
•
STATE OF HARYANA v. SHRI OM PRAKASH [PASAYAT, J.] 
367 
If the period is more than three years, there is no scope for including the A 
same for the purpose of working out the pensionary entitlements. 
1367-E; 368-G-H; 369-A-BI 
1.2. In the instant case, the period is undisputedly more than three 
years, the respondent is not entitled to pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 
4(iii) and the High Court erred in holding otherwise. The plea that though B 
the date of discharge is 13.6.1967 and the appointment was made in the 
year 1972, but the process for selection had started in 1970 and his services 
were regularized from 1972 after he had undergone military service, is 
clearly untenable in view of the clear language of Rule 4(iii). It is irrelevant 
as to when the process of selection had started or when the respondent C 
had undergone training as claimed. 1369-B-D) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 691 of2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.7.2003 of High Court of Punjab 
and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 10477/2002. 
D 
Pardeep Dahiya, Ajay Siwach and T.V. George for the Appellants. 
B.S. Mor and Mahinder Singh Dahiya for the Respondent 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. The State of Haryana calls in question 
correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court holding that the respondent was entitled to pension in 
terms of Rule 4(iii) of the Punjab Government National Emergency 
(Concession) Rules, 1965 (in short the 'Rules'). A writ petition was filed by F 
the respondent before the High Court claiming that he is entitled to pension 
taking into consideration the services rendered by him in the Armed Forces 
during the period when emergency was proclaimed. Placing reliance on Ru le 
4 (iii), the aforesaid claim of the respondent was declined by the appellant. 
It was stated that there was a gap of more than three years between the date G 
of discharge from the Armed Forces and his date of appointment as Veterinary 
Live Stock Development Assistant. 
In the writ petition filed the respondent re-iterated his claim for pension. 
According to him he fulfilled the conditions and therefore he was entitled to H 
pension. The State reiterated its stand that since there was a gap of more than 
368 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A three years, he was not entitled to any pension. The High Court held that the 
respondent was entitled to pensionary benefits because the services rend

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