Deciding Authority: The Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: D.P. Mohapatra & P. Venkatarama Reddi
Date of Judgement: 02/04/2002
Facts:
In response to the advertisement dated 16.10.1998 issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission inviting applications for certain posts of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial) Branch, which appeared in the newspaper ’Tribune’ on 16.10.98, the appellant submitted an application for appointment against one of the posts reserved for ex-servicemen. The competitive examination for recruitment to the post was to commence from 21.12.1998. The appellant was informed by the Commission that he could not be considered as an ex-serviceman as he had been discharged from the Indian Army at his own request. Feeling aggrieved by the action of the Commission in declining consideration of his candidature as ex-serviceman the appellant filed the aforementioned writ petition. The appellant joined the Indian Army on 8.10.1972 while he was holding the post of Hawaldar. He was discharged from the Army on 1.11.1990 after rendering 18 years and 24 days’ of total service. The ’cause of discharge’ described in the discharge certificate was “under Army Rule 13(3) II (iv) at his own request”. He is drawing pension as an ex-serviceman. The question that falls for determination in these appeals is whether the appellants are ’ex-servicemen’ for the purpose of appointment under the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules (for short ’the Rules’) . These appeals are directed against the common judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants.
Judgement:
By the notification dated 22.9.1992 issued by the State Government certain provisions of the 1982 Rules were amended. The definition of ex-servicemen in Rule 2a (ii) was substituted. The answer to the question formulated earlier depends on a fair interpretation of the Rules particularly the Rule laying down the definition of the term ’ex-servicemen’. It is relevant to note here that in the Certificate issued by the Ministry of Defence the appellant has been described as an ex-serviceman. The provision for reservation in the service rules is meant for the benefit of ex-servicemen. The purpose is to provide them with suitable jobs in civil services so that they may not face difficulty in adjusting themselves in civil society after leaving the defence service. In the context of the scheme of the provision the provisions in the rule should be interpreted in a purposive and reasonable manner so that the intent and purpose of the provision is served. The Court is of the view that a person in the army who has earned pension after putting in the requisite period of service before leaving the army whether at his own request or on being released by the employer on any ground should be treated as an ex-serviceman who has retired from the army. The High Court, in its view, is not justified in placing reliance on sub-clause (iv) of the definition clause and excluding the writ petitioners from the eligible category on that basis. Sub-clause (iv) has no application in the instant case for the reason that it applies to such of those persons who are relieved from service after specific period of engagement and become entitled to get gratuity. If a person, who served in the armed forces, is released after being granted the benefit of pension, the case is taken out of purview of sub-clause (iv). The exclusionary words “otherwise than at his own request” occurring in sub-clause (iv) cannot, therefore, be relied upon to deny the benefit to the appellants. Then the question arises whether such person would fall under sub-clause (i). True, according to the terminology used in the Service Rules governing the armed forces there is a distinction between retirement and release/discharge, as pointed out by the High Court. But, in the context of definition of ex-serviceman in Rule 2(c)(ii), broader meaning has to be given to the word ’retired’ occurring in sub-clause (i). In principle and in the light of the considerations set out above, there is no rational basis for excluding those discharged or released from service after earning pension. It is only after considerable period of satisfactory service a member of armed forces becomes entitled to pension. The mere fact that after such long period of service he voluntarily quit the service with the consent of the employer should not place him in a disadvantageous position for claiming the benefit of reservation for ex-serviceman. Therefore, the expression ’retirement’ should be given wider meaning in order to effectuate the objective behind the Rule.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
Sudipta Bhowmick, 4th Year, KIIT School of Law.
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS