Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Chand Sood vs State Of Punjab Etc on 17 January, 2025
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006517
103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDI
CHANDIGARH
CWP-15019
15019-1998
Date of Decision : 17
17-01-2025
KULDEEP CHAND SOOD ........Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
........Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Petitioner in person with
Mr.Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate.
Ms. Akshita Chauhan, DAG Punjab.
None for respondent No.6.
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the grievance being rraised
aised by the
petitioner is that the claim for the grant of seniority by counting the service
rendered by the petitioner in General Engineering Force from 08.10.1968 to
30.04.1980
.1980 for increment, promotion and seniority.
2. Learned counsel for the petitio
petitioner
er submits that the said issue
has already been decided by the co-ordinate
co ordinate Bench of this Court while
passing
sing the order in CWP No.2973 of 1996 titled ""Tirath
Tirath Singh Vs. The
State of Punjab", decided on 03.10.1996 (Annexure P-21), wherein the
same benefit has been granted to the similarly situated employees qua the
service rendered in GREF.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006517
CWP-15019-1998 (O&M) -2-
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view
the instructions which have been received, the petitioner limits his claim qua
the grant of increment by giving him seniority for the period he had rendered
in GREF and the petitioner is not claiming any promotion on the post of the
said seniority.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hands submits
that as per the Notification of the Government of Punjab dated 12.02.1982,
as mentioned in the written statement, the GREF is not the part of the armed
forces hence, no benefits could be granted.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the records of the present case with their able assistance.
6. In the present petition, the petitioner who has worked for a
period of 12 years in GREF is claiming benefit of Punjab Government
National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965. The said Rules were
interpreted by the Co-ordinate Bench while passing order in Tirath Singh's
case (supra) wherein the benefit has been granted of the service rendered in
GREF towards seniority.
7. The said judgment has already been implemented by the
respondent-State of Punjab hence once, a benefit has been given to a
similarly situated employee, the same could not be denied to the petitioner.
8. With regard to the 1982 Notification, it may be noticed that
prior to the issuance of the said Notification, the petitioner had already
joined the service under the State of Punjab in the year 1980 hence, the
Notification of 1982 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the
present case and even otherwise, the 1982 Rules is only titled as Punjab
Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982, which are not applicable in the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006517
CWP-15019-1998 (O&M) -3-
facts and circumstances of the present case especially when, the petitioner
had joined the service in GREF during emergency.
9. Further, the same question came up for consideration before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.499 of 1992 along with
Civil Appeal No.500 of 1992 dated 19.10.2000 titled "Sukhdev Singh Gill
Vs. State of Punjab", wherein it has been held that the employees working
in GREF are not entitled for the seniority being claimed by both and the
similar claim for seniority upon subsequent appointment with the
Government of Punjab was held to be maintainable.
10. In the said judgment, it has been noticed in Paragraph 19 that
though, seniority was not given by the military service for to be taken up for
the pay and leave. The relevant paragraph 19 of the said judgment is as
under:-
"Learned senior counsel for the appellant, however, invited out
attention to a statement made in the counter affidavit filed by Mr. Om
Parkash Tandon, PGS (I), Under Secretary to Government of Punjab,
Department of Local Government on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and
2 in the writ petition (respondent No.1 in the writ petition is the State
of Punjab and respondent No.2 is the Director, Local Self
Government Department, Punjab, Chandigarh). At pare 75 of the
paper book, we find in the said counter affidavit filed by the said
Officer it was stated that the appellant was entitled for the benefit of
previous military service for the purpose of "pay and leave" but he
was not entitled for the benefit of said service for "seniority". We take
note of the fact such a statement is made in the counter affidavit."
10. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is only claiming the
increments by the grant of retrospective appointment so as to fix his entitled
salary with consequent revision of his pension, the petitioner is held entitled
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006517
CWP-15019-1998 (O&M) -4-
for the said benefit having served in GREF for a period of 12 years, which
period, is to be taken into account for computing his service benefits qua the
increments and the pensionary benefits to which the petitioner is entitled for.
11. Keeping in view the above, the present petition is allowed to be
extended, the petitioner will be entitled for the increments for the period he
has been serving in GREF so as to fix his salary.
12. The service rendered by the petitioner in GREF will also to be
treated as a part of qualifying service for computing his pensionary benefits
admissible to him after the petitioner retired from service in the Government
of Punjab in case the petitioner has not been granted any benefit of the
service rendered in GREF, for any such purpose.
13. The claim of the petitioner for the grant of seniority be cannot
be accepted as he benefit of service rendered in GREF has already been
given hence, no such benefit will be admissible to the petitioner qua
seniority.
14. Let the respondents recalculate the entitlement of the petitioner.
The petitioner will also be entitled for the arrears upon the refixation of his
salary starting from July, 1996.
15. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
17-01-2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Sapna Goyal
JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking: YES
Whether reportable: NO
4 of 4
