I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) The short point that needs to be settled in this petition relates to the interpretation and implications of Rule 4 of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 (for short, the Rules). It reads as follows:- "4. Increments, seniority and pension.- 2 Period of military service shall count for increments, seniority and pension as under:- (i) Increments - The period spent by a person on military service, after attaining the minimum age prescribed for appointment to any service or post, to which he is appointed, shall count for increments. Where no such minimum age is prescribed the minimum age shall be as laid down in rules 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II. This concession shall, however, be admissible only on first appointment. (ii) Seniority. - The period of military service mentioned in clause (i) shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the seniority of a person who has rendered military service. Later another rule numbered as 4-A, which reads as follows, was added to these rules by the Haryana First Amendment Rules, 1979: "4-A. Benefit of military service when admissible,- The benefit of military service towards increments and seniority, mentioned in clause (i) and (ii) of 4 shall be admissible only on first appointment under the Government."
(2.) This latter mentioned rule has conceded been struck down by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3875 of 1979 (P&H) (Raj Kumar Verma and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on Aug. 26, 1980, and Special Leave Petition against the said judgment filed by the State of Haryana has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. This rule is thus no more available to the respondents.
(3.) It is not a matter of dispute between the parties that the two private respondents, Mr. Arya Mitter and Mr. Raj Kumar Verma served as Emergency Commissioned Officers in the Indian Army from July 21, 1963 to March 31, 1968 and Oct. 14, 1963 to Aug. 1, 1969 respectively. Later, on their release from the Army and as a result of their selection and appointment to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) in the year 1974, they sought the benefit of the above-quoted Rule 4 for purposes of their fixation of their seniority and pay etc. Though initially the State Government denied the said benefit to them yet on their having succeeded in this Court against those orders of the Government, they have now been given the benefit vide impugned order Annexure p.7 whereby their respective dates of appointment have been taken to be Dec. 1, 1969 and April 5, 1970, though actually they were so appointed on June 1, 1974 and July 1, 1974 respectively. It is in view of these assumed dates of their appointments that they have now been made senior to the petitioners who admittedly are recruits of the year 1972, vide the impugned order Annexure p.7. The case of the petitioners in a nut shell is that they haying actually been recruited to the service earlier to the private respondents, i.e., in the year 1972, even though the later have to be given the benefit of the above noted Rule 4, they (the petitioners) cannot be made junior to the private respondents and secondly since the petitioners were appointed against the vacancies of the year 1969, for purposes of seniority they should be taken to have been appointed to the service in that year which proceeds the assumed dates of appointment of the private respondents. Having heard the learned counsel for the paid ties at some length, I, however, find no merit in the stand of the petitioners.;