STATE OF HARYANA Vs. OM PRAKASH
LAWS(SC)-2006-7-99
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on July 10,2006

STATE OF HARYANA Appellant
VERSUS
SHRI OM PRAKASH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) 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 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 Rule 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 of discharge from the Armed Forces and his date of appointment as Veterinary Live Stock Development Assistant.
(2.) 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 pension. The State reiterated its stand that since there was a gap of more than 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 determining pensionary benefits. 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 the benefit is available. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment.
(3.) In order to appreciate the rival stands Rule 4(iii) needs to be quoted. The same reads as follows: 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 permanent service or post under the Govt. subject to the following conditions: (1) 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 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. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.