- (1.) The matter relates to the grant of benefit of previous military service to the petitioner who joined as Assistant District Attorney in Deputy Commissioner's Office, Narnaul on November 27, 1980. He served as Airman from August 20, 1964 to June 22, 1970 when he obtained voluntary retirement. His request for the grant of benefit of military service during emergency was declined vide order, Annexure P-5 by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana presumably based on the Government instructions contained in Annexure P-6 wherein after noticing the previous instructions on the subject dated March 22, 1976, August 4, 1976 and November 5, 1976, it was observed as under :- "The ex-servicemen employees who joined the civil services after the issue of these notifications would continue to be governed by these notifications." The stand of the respondents is that since the petitioner joined as Assistant District Attorney in November, 1986 under the instructions (notifications referred to above), the petitioner cannot be allowed the benefit of military service (rendered during emergency period).
(2.) The notifications dated March 22, 1976 and August 9, 1976 were challenged and were held to be bad by the Supreme Court in K.C. Arora and another v. State of Haryana and others, 1984 3 SCC 281. Subsequently, the matter was again considered by the Supreme Court in Raj Pal Sharma and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1985 AIR(SC) 1263The question for consideration was as to whether after seeking voluntary retirement from military service, the Government employee could get benefit of the same. As the instructions were to the contrary, it was held as under :- "All those persons released from military service constitute one class and it is not possible to single out certain persons of the same class for differential treatment. There appears to be no reasonable classification between the persons who were released on compassionate grounds and those who were released on other grounds and in this respect the petitioners have been deprived of the equal opportunity. The amendment by which proviso was added, therefore, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and, therefore, bad.
(3.) In this view of the legal position the petitioners herein are also entitled to the benefit of Rule 4 and the mere facts that they were released from military service on compassionate grounds cannot disentitle them as they satisfy the requirement of Rule 4 of the Punjab Rules as it originally stood. The grounds on which they were released are not material. If once they are held to be ex-military servicemen they are entitled to the benefits of Rule 4".;