M.S. Liberhan, J. - (1.) THE case put up by the Petitioner-Appellant was that he joined the Indian Army on April 15, 1963 and was commissioned as an Officer on May 3, 1964. He served in the Indo -Pak war. On his release on February 28, 1970, he joined as Lecturer in Government College on July 17, 1971 against the post reserved for the released Armed Force Personnel. His seniority was fixed with effect from November 12, 1964 in terms of the Demobilised Armed Forces personnel (Reservation of vacancies in the Punjab State Non -Technical services) Rule 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 1068, Rules) In 1972, the Punjab Public Service Commission selected the Petitioner as an Excise and Taxation officer against the post reserved for the reused Armed Force personnel and resultantly he joined the service on July 11, 1974. On Joining the said post the Petitioner claimed the benefit of military service with respect to fixation of his seniority pay, etc. which was declined as he said already availed of this concession once. The Government College the ground for declining the relief to the Petitioner could not be sustained in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the High Court in Shri Raj Kumar Verma H.C.S. v. The State of Haryana and Ors., 1979 (3) S.L.R. 719, wherein it was held that the benefit of military service under the rule cannot be confined to the first civil appointment alone. It has to be extended to all subsequent appointments. The Petitioner again staked his claim by making a representation for the relief under the directions of the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2184 of 1983. The state decided the representation, - -vide impugned order dated December 22, 1983, Copy Annexure P 3. It would be expedient to refer to the ground on which his representation was rejected, which runs as under: In accordance with the relevant rules be could claim benefit of his military Service only with reference to the first opportunity which became available to him for appointment as Excise and Taxation Officer after 1st November 1966, the date when these rules were made effective as provided under Rule 1(2) of the rules ibid. No recruitment of Excise and Taxation Officers was made after 1st November, 1966 other than the one in which he was recruited as Excise and Taxation officer. Therefore, the question of giving him any deemed date of appointment as Excise and Taxation Officer from an earlier periods does not arise....
(2.) PRECISELY the view taken by the learned Single Judge on the question posed that "does a first opportunity mean an opportunity prior to November 1, 1966 when there was no reservation - Does Rule 1(2) control the operation of Rule 5 with retrospective effect? It was concluded that the date of joining the military service or training prior to the commission, co -related to the first opportunity which an appointee under the rules could have while entering into service. Since the reservation was brought in for the first time in the rules, therefore, the first opportunity essentially would be after coming into force of these rules. Therefore, the governing factor would be the availability of first opportunity for such an appointee. The learned Judge was further of the opinion that since the Petitioner was appointed against the reserved post and no reservation could have been made earlier, therefore, neither the vacancy could be treated as reserved nor he could be deemed to have been appointed earlier to his date of appointment. It was further observed that it was to be the real opportunity, the chance of grabbing which, an appointee under the rules was almost certain. Resultantly, the learned Single Judge found that the Petitioner had failed to show that such Vacancy was available to him on the date with effect from which he wanted his seniority and there was limitation to the reservation which could not exceed 50 per cent and otherwise also, the seniority being condition of service could not be adversely affected in view of Section 82 of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966. The 1968 rules could not adversely affect the interest of the Respondents without prior permission of the central Government which admittedly was not there. The view of the learned Single Judge was (sic). The learned Counsel for the Appellant Summed up by submitting that the object of 1968 Rule is to give benefit to the Armed Forces Personnel who joined the Armed Forces and rendered Service during the period from 1962 to 1988 when the Nation needed their services. They should not be put to disadvantage for serving the Nation at the hour need. The rule should be liberally construed confer the benefit granted by the Rules upon the personnel who devoted their life for the Natton. They should not be deprived of their civil rights and opportunities which they otherwise could have to compose with the persons in ordinary course at the time when they joined the service in the Armed Forces.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to various Rules, Regulation and Instructions, finally resulting in 1968 Rules. It was pointed out that since February 25, 1963 onward various instruction were issued by the Punjab Government conferring war service concession to servicemen and civilian employees who undertook military service during emergency, direct recruitment on substantive basis was (sic) under the Punjab Government except with the section of the Government and for special reasons to be recorded by the Administrative Department concerned, con -ferment of any entailment on any employee for being made permanent in presence to those who had joined military service was eclipsed. It was provide that the period spent on approved military service would be counted towards seniority, promotion increment and leave in civil appointment. Limited benefit with respect to promotion etc. was also given. The methodology for conferring the various benefits was provided from time to time. So far as the benefit of seniority is concerned under the instructions it is provided that one who is appointed to civil service will be assigned a place in the cadre of such service which will be fixed with due regard to his age and the period allowed to be deduced in terms of the instruction will be nearly may be, correspond with thee place which he would have been assigned to if the emergency had not intervened and he had qualified in the normal way. By 1964 instructions for all interest and purpose Reservation was provided. Later all previous instruction ware (sic) made carry forward of sagged that an ex -serviceman who is appointed to a civil service will be assigned a place in the cadre of such service which will be fixed with due regard to age and period allowed to be (sic) in accordance with the instruction and nearly as he would have been assigned if the emergence had not intervened and he had qualified is the normal way October, 11 1966 the carry forward of 20 percent of posts was restricted for four years only.;