Date of Decision: August 11, 2014 Vs. State of Punjab and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1160853
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnAug-11-2014
AppellantDate of Decision: August 11, 2014
RespondentState of Punjab and Others
Excerpt:
cm no.7437 of 2014 in cwp no.14705 of 2012 [1].in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cm no.7437 of 2014 in cwp no.14705 of 2012 date of decision: august 11, 2014 piara singh and others ….petitioners versus state of punjab and others .....respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice hemant gupta hon’ble mr.justice rakesh kumar jain hon’ble mr.justice kuldip singh present: shri d.s.pheruman, advocate, for the applicant-petitioners.shri p.s.bajwa, addl. ag, punjab, for the respondents. hemant gupta, j. the present application is for review of an order passed by the full bench of this court on 12.3.2013, whereby the present writ petition was dismissed. the grievance of the petitioners is that his counsel could not make himself present at the time of hearing of the writ petition by the full bench as he was not well. however, during the cours.of arguments, it is pointed out that the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the amendment in the punjab recruitment of ex-servicemen rules, 1982 carried out on 15.10.2009, when rule 8-b was inserted. such rule provided that the benefit of second emergency i.e.from 3.12.1971 to 25.3.1997 can be claimed by the persons, who had joined and rendered service during the dalbir singh201408.12 14:52 i attest to the accuracy of this document high court chandigarh cm no.7437 of 2014 in cwp no.14705 of 2012 [2].aforesaid period. it is pointed out that the full bench has not considered the validity of the rules, inserted vide the aforesaid amendment, which was subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. we have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the present review application. in fact, rule 8-b of the rules inserted on 15.10.2009, has been considered by the full bench and also the amendments carried out by the punjab recruitment of ex-servicemen (firs.amendment) rules, 2012 on 10.4.2012, wherein the words `joined and”. appearing in clause(a) of rule 8-b(a) were omitted. after omission of such words, sub-clause (iii) has been added after clause (b) which restricts the payment of benefits to those persons, who were appointed in government service against the reserved vacancies and were in service on 1.12.2011 or appointed thereafter. however, it was provided that such benefit shall be admissible for pay fixation on notional basis with effect from 1.1.2012 and arrears of amount of pay shall not be paid. the bench has considered the amendment carried out on 10.4.2012 to hold that the benefits which otherwise may have accrued to the petitioners.have been taken away by sub-clause (iii) of rule 8-b(b) inserted vide the amendment dated 10.4.2012. the legality and validity of the amendment carried out on 10.4.2012 is not in issue. thus, by virtue of amendment in clause 8-b(b).the petitioners became entitled to the benefits of their military service. by virtue of addition of clause (iii) in rule 8-b(b).the benefits are not available to the petitioners as all the petitioners have retired prior to 1.12.2011 and thus, not entitled to count their military service. dalbir singh201408.12 14:52 i attest to the accuracy of this document high court chandigarh cm no.7437 of 2014 in cwp no.14705 of 2012 [3].therefore, we do not find any error apparent on record, which may warrant review of the order dated 12.3.2013. hence, the present review application is dismissed. (hemant gupta) judge (rakesh kumar jain) judge (kuldip singh) judge august 11, 2014 ds dalbir singh201408.12 14:52 i attest to the accuracy of this document high court chandigarh
Judgment:

CM No.7437 of 2014 in CWP No.14705 of 2012 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.7437 of 2014 in CWP No.14705 of 2012 Date of decision: August 11, 2014 Piara Singh and others ….Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH Present: Shri D.S.Pheruman, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioneRs.Shri P.S.Bajwa, Addl.

AG, Punjab, for the respondents.

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

The present application is for review of an order passed by the Full Bench of this Court on 12.3.2013, whereby the present writ petition was dismissed.

The grievance of the petitioners is that his counsel could not make himself present at the time of hearing of the writ petition by the Full Bench as he was not well.

However, during the couRs.of arguments, it is pointed out that the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the amendment in the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982 carried out on 15.10.2009, when Rule 8-B was inserted.

Such Rule provided that the benefit of second emergency i.e.from 3.12.1971 to 25.3.1997 can be claimed by the persons, who had joined and rendered service during the DALBIR SINGH201408.12 14:52 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh CM No.7437 of 2014 in CWP No.14705 of 2012 [2].aforesaid period.

It is pointed out that the Full Bench has not considered the validity of the Rules, inserted vide the aforesaid amendment, which was subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the present review application.

In fact, Rule 8-B of the Rules inserted on 15.10.2009, has been considered by the Full Bench and also the amendments carried out by the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen (FiRs.Amendment) Rules, 2012 on 10.4.2012, wherein the words `joined and”.

appearing in Clause(a) of Rule 8-B(a) were omitted.

After omission of such words, sub-clause (iii) has been added after Clause (b) which restricts the payment of benefits to those persons, who were appointed in Government Service against the reserved vacancies and were in service on 1.12.2011 or appointed thereafter.

However, it was provided that such benefit shall be admissible for pay fixation on notional basis with effect from 1.1.2012 and arrears of amount of pay shall not be paid.

The Bench has considered the amendment carried out on 10.4.2012 to hold that the benefits which otherwise may have accrued to the petitioneRs.have been taken away by Sub-Clause (iii) of Rule 8-B(b) inserted vide the amendment dated 10.4.2012.

The legality and validity of the amendment carried out on 10.4.2012 is not in issue.

Thus, by virtue of amendment in Clause 8-B(b).the petitioners became entitled to the benefits of their military service.

By virtue of addition of Clause (iii) in Rule 8-B(b).the benefits are not available to the petitioners as all the petitioners have retired prior to 1.12.2011 and thus, not entitled to count their military service.

DALBIR SINGH201408.12 14:52 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh CM No.7437 of 2014 in CWP No.14705 of 2012 [3].Therefore, we do not find any error apparent on record, which may warrant review of the order dated 12.3.2013.

Hence, the present review application is dismissed.

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE (KULDIP SINGH) JUDGE August 11, 2014 ds DALBIR SINGH201408.12 14:52 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh