State of Haryana and Anr. v. Shri Om Prakash

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Arijit Pasayat
Altamas Kabir
Judgment Date: 2006-07-10
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned High Court order is set aside. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Haryana and Anr.

Respondents

Shri Om Prakash

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Pardeep Dahiya
• Ajay Siwach
• T.V. George

Counsels for Respondents

• B.S. Mor
• Mahinder Singh Dahiya

Case Synopsis & Summary

The State of Haryana challenged a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling that Shri Om Prakash was entitled to pension under Rule 4(iii) of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965. The respondent served in the Armed Forces during the Emergency and was discharged on 13 June 1967; in 1972 he was appointed to a civil service post. He filed a writ petition seeking pension credits for his military service. Rule 4(iii) provides that the period of military service shall count towards pension only if the person does not earn a pension under military rules, and the period between discharge and appointment counts for pension automatically if such period does not exceed one year; if it exceeds one year but does not exceed three years, it may be counted in exceptional cases upon Government orders; if more than three years, there is no entitlement. The High Court held that the respondent's period could be counted and granted pension accordingly. The State appealed, contending that the plain language of Rule 4(iii) leaves no room for counting a gap exceeding three years, regardless of other considerations. The Supreme Court, per Arijit Pasayat, J., interpreted the rule in its plain terms, concluded that the period here is undisputedly more than three years, and therefore pension cannot be counted. The appeal is allowed; the High Court's judgment is set aside; there shall be no order as to costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 — Rule 4(iii)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contends that Rule 4(iii) unambiguously excludes pension entitlement when there is a gap exceeding three years between discharge and appointment, irrespective of other circumstances. In the present case, the period from 13 June 1967 to the appointment in 1972 is clearly more than three years; the process of selection or training is irrelevant as the rule turns on the date of discharge and the date of appointment. The High Court’s interpretation extending pension benefits beyond the three-year cap contradicts the explicit language that beyond three years there is no entitlement. The Government cannot countersign an automatic counting beyond the statutory threshold, and therefore the writ petition should have been dismissed.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent submits that Rule 4(iii) contemplates counting the period of military service toward pension, especially when the period between discharge and civil appointment is within one year automatically, and up to three years may be counted in exceptional circumstances under Government orders. The High Court correctly read the rule as allowing counting in certain cases and thus granting pension for the period of military service. The respondent’s service during emergency should be recognized against pensionary benefits, and the process for appointment should not defeat the entitlement provided the statutory conditions are met.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

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. Allowing the appeal, the Court ## F 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 II 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 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. 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 rendered by him during the period of his military service when emergency remained proclaimed shall be counted in addition to the qualifying service rendered by him in civil employment for the purpose of detennining pensionary benefits. B A direction was given to work out the details and grant the benefits. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the State submitted that the High Court did not correctly interpret Rule 4(iii) of the Rules though the rule was noticed. A bare reading of the stipulated condition in the said rule makes the position clear that only if there was a gap of less than three years C the benefit is available. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment. Jn order to appreciate the rival stands Rule 4(iii) needs to be quoted. The same reads as follows: D "4(iii) _Increments Seniority and Pension:-_ Period of Military service shall count for increments, seniority and pension as under:- Pension: The period of military service mentioned in Clause-I shall count towards pension only in the case of appointments of pennanent service or post under the Govt. subject to the following E conditions: (!)The person concerned should not have earned a pension under military rules in respect of the military service in question. (2) The period, if any, between the date of discharge from military F service and the date of appointment to any service or post under the Government shall count for pension provided such period does not exceed one year. Any period exceeding one year, but not exceeding 3 years may also be allowed to count for pension in exceptional cases under the orders of the Government." G A bare reading of the provision makes the position clear that for the purpose of computing the period of permanent service, two conditions are to be kept in view. First is that the person concerned should not have earned a pension under Military Rules in respect of the military service in question. The second condition in fact has two parts. For the purpose of working out H the entitlement, the period if any between the date of discharge from military service and the date of appointment to any service or post under the STATE OF HARYANA _v._ SHRI OM PRAKASH [PASAYAT, .I.] 369 E Government shall count for pension automatically if such period does not A exceed one year. But ifthe period exceeds one year but does not exceed three years, the period may be allowed to be counted in exceptional cases. In other words, 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. If the period B is more than three years, there is no scope for including the same for the purpo.se of working out the pensionary entitlements. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no dispute that 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. It is urged that C his services were regularized from 1972 after he had undergone military service. The aforesaid plea is clearly untenable in view of the clear language of Rule 4(iii) as quoted above. There being no dispute that the appointment was made in 1972. It is irrelevant as to when the process of selection had started or when the respondent had undergone training as claimed. The language of Rule 4(iii) is very clear to the effect that the period has to be D reckoned between the date of discharge upto the date of appointment. When the period is undisputedly more than three years respondent is not entitled to pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 4(iii) and the High Court erred in holding otherwise. The impugned order of the High Cou11 is set aside. The appeal is allowed. But there shall be no order as to costs. N.J. Appeal allowed.