AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.S. Doabia, J.—Two petitioners who came to be appointed as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon submit that they should be given benefit of
service which they have rendered with the Army. Facts in brief are as under :
That petitioners joined services of the State Government as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. When they were so serving they got opportunity to
join army. They made request to the State Government that their lien be kept intact with the State Government; they be permitted to join armed
forces. Petitioners were so permitted to join Short Service Commission in Remount Veterinary Corps. An order to this effect was passed on
13.6.1986. This is Annexure A. Similar permission was granted to the petitioner No. 2 also. For this reliance is being placed on letter dated
27.1.86. This is annexure C. After completing Short Service Commission with the Army they have joined State Services. They want benefit of
services rendered by them with the Army to be recognised. In paras 8 and 9 reply given by the State is as under :
8, 9. That the contents of paras No. 8 and 9 are admitted to the extent that both the petitioners were allowed to join the department vide Admn
Deptt No. AHPer/96 dated 27.8.1996 that the period spent by them (the petitioners) while on duty with Vety Crops would be decided later on.
Copy of the letter dated 27.8.96 is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure A.
It is further admitted that in case of others services rendered in the Army has been counted towards increments and also for promotion. This is
so stated in paras 1112 of the reply. It is further stated that case of the petitioners have been recommended to the Administrative Department but
no action has been taken so far.
Submission made by the petitioners is simple. It is submitted that if benefit should be accorded to Dr. P.D. Singh and Dr. H.S. Raina then there
should be no impediment in the way to grant same benefit to the petitioners. After going through the pleadings I am of the opinion that petitioners
are entitled to the same benefit as has been allowed to two other persons namely Dr. P.D. Singh and Dr. H.S. Raina. If an administrative decision
has been taken in favour of those two person then a direction can be given for allowing the same benefit to the petitioners also. Giving of such
direction would not amount to asking the State Government to give any concession. This aspect of the matter was considered by the Letters Patent
Bench in Letters Patent Appeal (S) No. 449/99, Surinder Singh v. State of J&K and ors., decided on 1.5.2000. In this benefit was given to one
category. It was denied to other. Argument raised by the State was that if a concession has been given then no writ can be issued with a view to
get that concession enforced for other persons. This argument was repealed by the following observations :
If above be the factual position then the case of the appellant is similar to these whose names are mentioned in the Government Order dated
19.3.1991 and later order dated 22th of February, 1994. As such the appellant cannot be denied the benefits which have been given to others.
The benefit to others have been given not by way of concession but by taking a policy/administrative decision. This decision has to be applied
universally to all. Appellant cannot be denied benefit.
Against the aforementioned decision a Special Leave Petition was preferred. This bears No. 5266/2001. This was dismissed by the Supreme
Court of India on 23.3.2001. In view of the above this petition is allowed. Petitioners are held entitled to benefit as has been granted to Dr. P.D.
Singh and Dr. H.S. Raina.
This petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above.