Punjab and Haryana High Court upholds rule granting military service benefits for second emergency appointments

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, July 22

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that there is no manifest arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the State’s decision to extend benefit of military service to persons appointed during second emergency. The court found the classification reasonable.

“The persons – who had served during first emergency as well as second emergency or were appointed prior to declaration of second emergency – had worked as a matter of their job responsibility, whereas persons who joined armed forces during period of emergency declared on account of war, consciously decided to serve the nation during tough time. They cannot be treated on a par with those persons who were already in service,” the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Jagmohan Bansal asserted.

The ruling came on a bunch of eight petitions against the State of Punjab and other respondents challenging – among other things – Rule 8B of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules confining increment to employees appointed during second national emergency from December 3, 1971 to March 25, 1977. The petitioners were also seeking direction to the respondents to extend increment to persons, who had worked during first as well as second emergency.

The Bench observed the petitioners were challenging the impugned rule on the grounds that it is arbitrary and unreasonable to deny the benefit of military service rendered during the second national emergency to those who served during that period but were not appointed at that time.

The Bench asserted the State as per its wisdom decided to grant increment with regard to the second national emergency. It was neither fundamental nor vested right of any person. The petitioners during emergency served armed forces of Union of India, while increment was granted by State government.

It was total discretion of the state government to grant increment with regard to service rendered during first and second emergency. Rule 8B was introduced in 2009 and it was time to time amended during 2009-2018. The State had every right to grant benefit or concession considering its financial constraints and available resources.

The courts could interfere if there was discrimination or violation of any right guaranteed by Chapter-III of the Constitution of India. “This court does not find any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the action of respondent warranting interference of this Court. Thus, impugned Rule 8B is hereby declared valid,” the Bench asserted.