Judgement

J. S. VERMA, J. :- Special leave granted in special leave petitions.

2. The only question for decision in these matters is : Whether the benefit of earlier qualifying military service as defined in the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "1965 rules") could be given to the concerned employees appointed after 1-11-1966 in the services of the Union Territory of Chandigarh except Medical and Health Services thereof? If it is held that the benefit of the said rules is available also to the employees appointed in the services of the Union Territory of Chandigarh after its formation on 1-11-1966 then the claim of each of them has to be examined on merits in accordance with the rules. The Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana have taken the view that these rules do not apply to appointees in the services of the Union Territory after 1-11-1966. These matters arise out of these decisions.

3. The only material fact which requires mention is that these matters relate to employees in the services of the Union Territory of Chandigarh all of whom were appointed subsequent to 1-11-1966. They claim benefit of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 for the purpose of increments, seniority, promotion and pension etc, in accordance with the rules. The stand of the Union Territory is that the benefit of the 1965 Rules is available only to the appointees prior to 1-11-1966 since they were appointed in the State of Punjab and carry with them the benefit which had already accrued to them. It may be mentioned that the Union Territory Administration itself by G.O. No.1023-IH(7)-87/5025 dated 19-3-1987 had taken the view that the benefit of military service in accordance with these rules would be available to ex-servicemen who joined service in the various departments in the Union Territory of Chandigarh but subsequently this view was altered in G.O. No.27/1/3/92-IH(7)/10935 dated 2-6-1992 on reconsideration of the matter. This change in the view gave rise to the claims made by the concerned employees in the Tribunal and High Court.

4. In the context of applicability of an administrative order of the Government of State of Punjab issued prior to 1-11-1966 it was held by this Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (1976)3 SCC 242 : (AIR 1977 SC 629) that by virtue of Section 88 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, an administrative order made by the erstwhile State did not automatically lapse and continued to be in force, effective and binding on the successor State unless modified and repudiated. There can be no doubt that The Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 which fall within the definition of "law" in Section 2 (g) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 continued in force and were effective in the Union Territory of Chandigarh until and unless modified, changed or repudiated by the Union Territory Administration. The question, therefore, is whether there was any modification, change or repudiation of the said 1965 Rules by the Union Territory administration after 1-11-1966? It may be mentioned that the Punjab Recruitment of Exservicements Rules, 1982 repealed the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 but the saving clause therein preserved the rights which had accused to any person under the repealed rules. all the employees, in these matters were appointed after 1-11-1966 but before the application of 1982 Rules. There is no controversy that if the 1965 Rules continued to be in force in the Union Territory after 1-11-1966 unless repudiated or repealed, the concerned employees in these matters, subject to fulfilment of the conditions of eligibility under the 1965 rules would be entitled to its benefit. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether the 1965 Rules were modified, repudiated or repealed in their applicability to these employees?

5. The answer depends