Supreme Court Denies Military Service Benefit for Seniority in Punjab Civil Service: Jagmohan Singh Dhillon vs. Satwant Singh (26 March 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 26 March 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 174
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J., Hemant Gupta, J.
Can prior military service be counted towards seniority in the Punjab Civil Service for ex-servicemen? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent judgment, clarifying the applicability of service rules for those who transitioned from the armed forces to civil service. This case revolves around the interpretation of the Punjab Civil Service Rules of 1972 and 1982 and their impact on the seniority of ex-servicemen. The three-judge bench, comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer, and Hemant Gupta, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The appellants, former members of the Indian Armed Forces, were appointed to the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) after their release from the Army. The core of the dispute lies in the determination of their seniority within the civil service. Initially, the Demobilized Indian Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Punjab Civil Service) (Executive Branch) Rules, 1972, reserved 20% of vacancies for ex-servicemen who had joined military service after November 1, 1962. These rules were later repealed by the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982, which reduced the reservation to 15% and did not carry forward the benefit of adding military service to seniority. The appellants were appointed to the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) in 1986, following an examination held in 1985, and their seniority was fixed without considering their prior military service. They contested this, claiming that the 1972 rules should apply to them, entitling them to have their military service counted towards seniority.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellants initially filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, challenging the fixation of their seniority. A Single Judge of the High Court ruled in their favor on July 31, 2007, stating that they should be deemed to have been appointed under the 1972 Rules and thus entitled to the benefits of those rules, including the counting of military service for seniority. The State of Punjab appealed this decision, and the Division Bench of the High Court overturned the Single Judge’s ruling on July 28, 2009, dismissing the appellants’ writ petitions. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of two sets of rules:

✓ The Demobilized Indian Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Punjab Civil Service) (Executive Branch) Rules, 1972: These rules reserved 20% of vacancies for ex-servicemen and, under Rule 4, allowed for the counting of military service towards seniority and pay fixation. Rule 4 of the 1972 Rules stated:

“4.(1) The period of military service rendered after attaining the minimum age prescribed for appointment to the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch), by the candidates appointed against reserved vacancies under rule 2, shall count towards fixation of pay and seniority in the said Service, subject to the condition that – (a)The date of appointment in the PCS (Executive Branch) in respect of such candidates as are appointed against the reserved vacancies under rule 2 shall be determined on the assumption that they joined the service under the State Government at the first opportunity they had after joining the military service or training prior to the Commission; (b)The inter se seniority of the military personnel determined by the Punjab Public Service Commission shall not be disturbed; (c)a military personnel appointed as a result of an earlier selection shall be senior to a military personnel appointed as a result of subsequent selection irrespective of the period of military service to his credit; and (d)all candidates appointed against the reserved vacancies under rule 2 shall rank below the candidates appointed by direct recruitment in the year to which the former candidates are allotted.”

✓ The Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982: These rules superseded the 1972 Rules, reducing the reservation for ex-servicemen to 15%. Crucially, Rule 4 of the 1982 Rules did not include any provision for counting military service towards seniority. Rule 10 of the 1982 Rules specifically repealed the 1972 Rules. Rule 4 of the 1982 Rules stated:

“4. Reservation of Vacancies.(1 ) Subject to the provision of rule 3, fifteen percent of the vacancies to be filled in by direct appointment in all the State Civil Services and Posts connected with the affairs of the State of Punjab shall be reserved for being filled in by recruitment of Ex-servicemen; “Provided that where an Ex-serviceman is not available for recruitment against a reserved vacancy, such a vacancy shall be reserved to be filled in by recruitment of the wife or one dependent child of an Ex-serviceman, who has neither been recruitment against reserved vacancy nor is eligible to be recruited against such vacancy under these rules; “Provided further that the total number of reserved vacancies including those reserved for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes shall not exceed fifty percent of the posts to be filled in a particular year.”

Rule 10 of the 1982 Rules stated:

“10. Repeal – The following rules are hereby repealed- 1.The Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965; 2.The Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Punjab State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1968; 3.The Demobilized Indian Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Punjab Civil Services) (Executive Branch) Rules, 1972; and 4.The Released Indian Armed Forces Personnel (Determination of Eligibility for promotion) Rules, 1977.”

The Supreme Court also considered the implications of Article 309 read with Article 234 and 318 of the Constitution of India which empower the state to frame rules for civil services.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the vacancies against which they were appointed in 1986 were vacancies that existed before the 1982 Rules came into force. Therefore, the 1972 Rules should apply, entitling them to the benefit of Rule 4, which allows for the counting of military service towards seniority and pay fixation.
• They contended that a previous judgment of the High Court in Ishwar Singh and others vs. State of Punjab had already established that the 1972 Rules apply for determining vacancies reserved for Armed Forces personnel.

State of Punjab’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the advertisement for the posts was issued after the enforcement of the 1982 Rules. The appellants applied and were appointed under the 1982 Rules. Therefore, the 1972 Rules, which were repealed, could not be applied for determining their seniority.
• The State contended that the benefit of Rule 4 of the 1972 Rules was not available under the 1982 Rules. Thus, the seniority of ex-servicemen appointed under the 1982 Rules should be determined as per the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that they had already retired from service.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively argued that since the vacancies existed prior to the enforcement of the 1982 Rules, the 1972 Rules should be applicable for determining seniority, even though they were appointed after the new rules came into effect. This argument sought to bridge the gap between the existence of vacancies and the timing of appointments.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellants, for the determination of their seniority, were entitled to the benefit of Rule 4 of the 1972 Rules, which allowed for the counting of military service towards seniority?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Ishwar Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, W.P.No.3236 of 1995, Punjab and Haryana High Court: This case was relied upon by the appellants to argue that the 1972 Rules should apply for determining the percentage of reserved vacancies. The High Court had held that the reservation quota for vacancies that occurred before 12.02.1982 would be 20% for ex-servicemen and from 12.02.1982 it would be 15%. The Supreme Court clarified that this judgment only pertained to the percentage of reservation and not seniority.
• R.K. Barwal and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2017) 16 SCC 803, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that seniority is generally determined by the date of entry into service and that there must be weighty reasons to depart from this rule. The Court also held that benefits extended to those who joined the armed forces during wartime could not be extended to those who joined during peacetime.
• State of Punjab and other versus Dr. Balbir Bharadwaj, LPA No.168 of 2004, Punjab and Haryana High Court: This case was distinguished by the Division Bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court upheld this distinction.

Statutes:

• The Demobilized Indian Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Punjab Civil Service) (Executive Branch) Rules, 1972: These rules provided for a 20% reservation for ex-servicemen and included Rule 4, which allowed for the counting of military service towards seniority.
• The Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982: These rules repealed the 1972 Rules, reduced the reservation to 15%, and did not include any provision for counting military service towards seniority.
• Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976: These rules govern the seniority of personnel in the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch).
• Article 309 read with Article 234 and 318 of the Constitution of India: These articles empower the state to frame rules for civil services.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of military service for the purpose of seniority in the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch). The Court reasoned that the 1972 Rules, which provided for this benefit, were specifically repealed by the 1982 Rules. The Court emphasized that the appellants were appointed under the 1982 Rules, which did not include any provision for counting military service towards seniority. The Court also noted that the saving clause in Rule 9(3) of the 1982 Rules did not extend any benefit to the appellants because no such right had accrued to them before they joined the service.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Ishwar Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, [CITATION] The Court clarified that this case only pertained to the percentage of reservation of vacancies and not to seniority determination.
• R.K. Barwal and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, [CITATION] The Court relied on this case to reiterate that seniority is generally determined by the date of entry into service and there needs to be a valid reason to deviate from this rule.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the 1972 Rules, which provided the benefit of counting military service towards seniority, were explicitly repealed by the 1982 Rules. The Court emphasized that the appellants were appointed under the 1982 Rules, which did not contain any provision for this benefit. The Court also reiterated that seniority is generally determined by the date of entry into service, and there must be a strong reason to depart from this rule. The Court also distinguished the previous judgment in Ishwar Singh’s case, clarifying that it only dealt with the percentage of reservation and not seniority.

The Court emphasized the following points:

• The 1972 Rules were specifically repealed by the 1982 Rules.
• The 1982 Rules did not continue the benefit of counting military service for seniority.
• The appellants were appointed under the 1982 Rules.
• Seniority is generally determined by the date of entry into service.

The Supreme Court stated:

“Under 1982 Rules, there is no indication that the benefit which was available to Armed Forces Personnel under Rule 4 of 1972 Rules are continued or any right has been accrued on the appellant under 1972 Rules which he is entitled to avail regarding seniority.”

“The view of learned Single Judge that the appellant shall be deemed to be appointed under 1972 Rules cannot be approved.”

“We, thus, hold that the appellant was not entitled to claim benefit of military service for purpose of seniority for appointment to Punjab Civil Service(Executive Branch) since the benefit of Rule 4(1) of 1972 Rules was not continued in 1982 Rules.”

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that since the vacancies existed prior to the enforcement of the 1982 rules, the 1972 rules should apply. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the relevant rules for determining seniority are those in force at the time of appointment, not when the vacancies arose.

The Court also considered the judgment in Ishwar Singh’s case, which held that the 1972 Rules should apply to vacancies that occurred before the 1982 Rules came into effect. However, the Court clarified that this judgment only applied to the percentage of reservation and not to the determination of seniority.

The Court’s final decision was that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of counting military service towards seniority because the 1982 Rules, under which they were appointed, did not provide for this benefit. The Court emphasized that the normal rule for fixing seniority is with reference to the date of entry into the service, and there was no valid reason to depart from this rule in the present case.

Key Takeaways

• Ex-servicemen appointed to the Punjab Civil Service after the enforcement of the 1982 Rules cannot claim the benefit of having their military service counted towards seniority.
• The rules in force at the time of appointment, not when the vacancies arose, are applicable for determining seniority.
• The repeal of a rule means that any benefits provided under the repealed rule are no longer available unless specifically saved by the repealing rule.
• Seniority in civil service is generally determined by the date of entry into service, and there must be a strong reason to depart from this rule.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the rules in force at the time of appointment, not when the vacancies arose, are applicable for determining seniority, and that the repeal of a rule means that any benefits provided under the repealed rule are no longer available unless specifically saved by the repealing rule. This judgment clarifies the application of service rules to ex-servicemen and reinforces the principle that seniority is generally determined by the date of entry into service. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but rather a clarification of its application in the context of repealed and new service rules.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court ruled that the appellants were not entitled to have their military service counted towards seniority in the Punjab Civil Service because they were appointed under the 1982 Rules, which did not provide for this benefit. This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding the seniority of ex-servicemen appointed to civil services after the repeal of rules that previously allowed for the counting of military service towards seniority.