High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 02 P&H CK 0231

The State of Punjab and others vs Tarlok Singh

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 21 February 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.M.S. Bedi, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CR 1453 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 619 words

M.M.S. Bedi, J.—The suit of the plaintiff- respondent for a declaration that he was entitled to all the benefits of military service rendered by him, had been allowed.

2.

Vide impugned order the executing court has observed that the petitioner had joined the Army service on 15.9.1961 and he retired on 30.9.1976, as such, he would be entitled to the benefits as per the judgment and decree dated 28.3.1992,of the service rendered by him in the military.

3.

The sole objective of the State before the executing court was that the decree holder could be granted the benefit of only one emergency service, which has already been released to him and he is not entitled to the military service benefits, rendered by him in the second period of emergency.

4.

The petitioner State has vehemently urged that the executing court has wrongly granted the benefit of second emergency and directed the petitioner- Judgment Debtor to release the payment.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had joined the Army service on 15.9.1961 and he retired on 30.9.1976. He had been in military service for the emergency periods i.e. from 26.10.1962 to 10.1.1968 and from 8.12.1971 to 30.9.1976. In view of he having served for both the emergency periods, he would be entitled to the benefit of military service rendered by him from 8.12.1971 to 30.9.1976 besides the emergency period from 26.10.1962 to 10.1.1968. For the purpose of release of benefits of second emergency period, a Notification dated 15.10.2009 has been issued by the State Government. As per Rule 8 B of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen (First Amendment)Rules, 2009 ( for short ''the Act''), period of military service rendered during the second national emergency from 3rd December 1971 to 25th March, 1977, shall count for increments and pension. The relevant portion of Rule 8(b) of the Rules is reproduced hereunder:-

8-B. Increments and pension-- period of military service rendered during the Second National Emergency from 3rd December, 1971 to 25th March, 1977, shall count for increments and pension as under:-

(a) Increments:- The increments for the aforesaid service shall be paid to those persons only, who joined and rendered service during the aforementioned period. This benefit will, however, be given only at the time of making first appointment on regular basis on a civil post or service under the Government. However, these increments will be taken into account when the pay of a person is subsequently fixed on account of his promotion, selection, new recruitment or revision of pay scale or otherwise; and

(b) Pension-- The period of military service, referred to above, shall count towards pension only in case of an appointment to a permanent post under the Government, subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(i) the person concerned should not have earned a pension under military rules in respect of the military service in question.

(ii) Any bonus or gratuity paid in respect of military service by the defence authorities shall have to be refunded to the Government; and

(iii) the period, if any, between the date of discharge from military service and the date of appointment to any service or post under the Government, shall count for pension; provided such period does not exceed one year. Any period exceeding one year, but not exceeding three years, may also be allowed to count for pension in exceptional cases as per orders of the government.

6.

In view of the above said notification, the executing court has rightly allowed the service benefit for the second emergency period, for which the respondent decree-holder has actually served during the emergency period.

Dismissed.