TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted by the State of Haryana. The Government of Haryana vide Notifications dated March 22, 1976, August 9, 1976 and November 5, 1976 introduced amendments to these Rules. The appellants are denied the benefits under the Rules in view of such amendments. The writ petition filed by the appellants challenging the amendments was dismissed in limine by the impugned judgment dated July 11, 1988. 3. Rule 4 of the Emergency Concessions Rules as it originally stood, insofar as is relevant for the purpose of these cases reads as follows 4. Increments, seniority and pension. - 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 .... 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. (iii) * * * For the purpose of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... down as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in Raj Pal Sharma v. State of Haryana [1985 Supp SCC 72 1985 SCC (L S) 819]. 6. Respondent State issued instructions vide letter No. 12/14/84-4 GSII dated August 4, 1986 that the ex-servicemen, employees who joined the civil service after the issue of these notifications would constitute to be government by these notifications. The appellants and the writ petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1159 of 1989 who joined government service since December 1976 are accordingly denied the benefits under the Rules. Under Rule 4 read with Rule 2 as amended, only those who are enrolled or commissioned during the period of emergency are eligible for the benefits under Rule 4. Ex-army personnel who joined the army prior to October 26, 1962 cannot claim that service during the period of emergency should count for increment, seniority or pension. 7. The appellants 4, 5, 7 and 8 had been enrolled or commissioned during the period of the emergency but were released on compassionate grounds. But for the proviso to Rule 4(ii) introduced by the amendment vide Notification No. GSR 238/Const/Art. 309/Amend(3)/76 dated November 5, 1976, they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification No. GSR 77/Const/Art. 309/Amend(1)/76 dated March 22, 1976 and the Notification No. GSR 182/Const/Art. 309/Amend(2)/76 dated August 9, 1976 amending the definition of the expression 'military service' in Rule 2, are declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, insofar as they affect prejudicially persons who had acquired rights as stated above. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing respondents 1 and 2 to prepare the seniority list afresh in the light of the decision of this Court taking into consideration the military service rendered by the petitioners as well as the appellants. The question whether Rule 2 as amended as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution was not specifically considered. The appellants other than 4, 5, 7 and 8 and the writ petitioners who have come before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitutions can succeed in their challenge only if it is made out that Rule 2 as amended is discriminatory and that these appellants and similarly situated persons are denied equal protection under law and equal opportunity. 9. It has been contended that the amendment confining the military service fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per se amount to discrimination with the inhibition of equal protection clause under Article 14. To attract the attention of the clause, it is necessary to show that the selection or differentiation is unreasonable or arbitrary and that it does not rest on any rational basis having regard to the object which the legislature has in view. The court has to examine whether the classification can be deemed to rest upon differentia discriminating the persons or things grouped from those left out and whether such differentia has a reasonable relation to the objects sought to be achieved irrespective of whether the rule is intended to apply to person or thing or to a certain class of persons or things. Therefore, the policy or the object of the legislation are relevant consideration. 11. On account of the external aggression by the Chinese forces in the Indian Territory, the emergency was imposed by the President of India in 1962. In order to attract young men to join military service at that critical juncture, the Central Government and the State Governments issued different circulars and advertisements on the radio and in the press promising certain benefits to be given to those young ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proviso to Rule 4(ii) has already been struck down in Raj Sharma case [1985 Supp SCC 72 1985 SCC (L S) 819], such of the appellants who had been released from the military service on compassionate grounds are entitled to the benefits of their military service. 14. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 959 of 1989 is not entitled to any further relief as is concluded by the earlier decision of this Court in Ex-Capt. Randhir Singh Dhull v. S.D. Bhambri [(1981) 2 SCC 338 1981 SCC (L S) 386 (1981) 3 SCR 5] and the clarification in Ex-Capt. A.S. Parmar v. State of Haryana [1986 Supp SCC 283 1986 SCC (L S) 660] that it is only the service rendered during the period of emergency that could be taken into account and not any other period. In disposing of the review petition, Chinnappa Reddy, J. observed as under (SCC p. 285, para 1) Though... the judgment (in K.C. Arora case [(1984) 3 SCC 281 1984 SCC (L S) 520]) appears to proceed as if the change was brought about in 1976 even in regard to the length of military service to be taken into account, that question was not actually decided. On the other hand, in R.S. Dhull v. S.D. Bhambri [(1981) 2 SCC 338 1981 SCC (L S) 386 (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
