- (1.) Is a person who had been enrolled or commissioned in any of the three Wings of the Indian Armed Forces prior to the proclamation of the Emergency on October 26, 1962 and joins a civil post in the State of Punjab after his discharge/retirement from the Armed Forces, entitled to the benefits of pay and seniority etc. under the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 This is the short question that arises in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. A few facts may be noticed.
(2.) The petitioner joined the Indian Army on September 23, 1961. He was released from the Army on December 16, 1978. Thereafter, he joined service as a clerk in the office of the District & Sessions Judge, Amritsar on February 19, 1980. Soon after his appointment, the petitioner submitted a representation for the grant of benefits towards increments and seniority etc. under the 1965 Rules. The petitioners' claim having not been decided, he approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 14860 of 1993. On March 15, 1994, a Division Bench of this Court directed the District & Sessions Judge to decide the petitioner's representation within two months. Vide order dated June 30, 1994, the learned District Judge has rejected the petitioner's representation. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this court through the present writ petition.
(3.) In response to the notice of motion issued by this Bench, a written statement has been filed by the respondent. It has been inter alia averred that the petitioner had joined the office on February 29, 1980 and he had submitted his application on February 9, 1982. On this premises, it has been averred that "there is delay in the filing of the petition." On merits, it has been stated that the petitioner had joined service as a clerk in the office of the respondent on February 29, 1980 and not on February 19, 1980. The benefits under the 1965 Rules are available only to the persons who had joined service during the operation of the proclamation of Emergency and not to those who had joined prior thereto. The respondent has placed reliance on the decisions in Dhan Singh and others v. The State of Haryana and others, 1991 1 SCT 137 Nirmal Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Another, 1992 1 SCT 126 and Ram Niwas v. The State of Haryana and others, 1994 1 SLR 76. On this basis, it is prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.;