Judgment

R. B. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) ON account of the external aggression by Chinese forces on the Indian territory an emergency was imposed by the government of India in 1962. In order to attract youngmen to join military service at that critical juncture the central government and the governments of the States issued different circulars and advertisements on radio and in the press promising certain benefits to be given to those youngmen who joined the military service. In view of the promises made through circulars the Punjab government framed rules under Article 309 of the Constitution known as the Punjab government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965, hereinafter called the Punjab Rules. These Rules were adopted by the State of Haryana also. Rule 4 of the said Rules, as it stood originally insofar a relevant for the purposes of the present petitions, read as follows :

4. Increments, seniority and pension. Period of military service shall count for increments, seniority and pension as under:

(I) Increments: The period spent by a person on military service, after attaining the minimum age prescribed for appointment to any service or post, to which he is appointed, shall count for increments. Where no such minimum age is prescribed the minimum age shall be as laid down in Rules 3. 9, 3. 10 and 3. 11 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. This concession shall, however, be admissible only on first appointment.

(II) Seniority: The period of military service mentioned in clause (i) shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the seniority of a person who has rendered military service.

( 2 ) IT appears that the governor of Haryana by a notification dated 5/11/1976 in exercise of the power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution amended the Punjab Rules by inserting a proviso to Rule 4 whereby persons who had been released from military service on compassionate grounds were singled out for being deprived of the benefits of thatrule. The proviso added to Rule 4 is quoted below :,

PROVIDED that a person who has been released from military service on compassionate grounds shall not be entitled to any concession under this rule. The Petitioners in this bunch of cases served. in the army/air force during war with Pakistan and China. After their release from military service they joined various civil services of the State. They were also entitled to the benefits of Rule 4 as it stood originally. They were, however, refused on some ground or the other. The main ground was that they had been released from military service on compassionate grounds and, therefore, they were not entitled to the benefits of Rule 4 in view of the proviso added to Rule 4 by amendment in 1976. They made representations after representations but to no avail.

( 3 ) MANY ex-servicemen who were similarly situated challenged the earlier amendments to Rule 4 by notification dated March 22, 1976 and to Rule 2 by notification dated 9/08/1976 with retrospective effect, by filing Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High court of Punjab and Haryana. Those Writ Petition were, however, dismissed by the High court. Thereafter a number of appeals were filed by the aggrieved persons and some others also filed Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before this court. This court allowed the appeals and the Writ Petition, the leading judgment being in Ex-Captain K. C. Arora v. State of Haryana holding that the said amendments were ultra vires the Constitution and bad.

( 4 ) THE petitioners in the present bunch of cases sought to take advantage of the aforesaid decision of this court in K. C. Arora case. They were, however, refused on the ground that they were not party to the above decision of this court, but mainly on the ground that the petitioners were released from military service on compassionate grounds and the proviso to Rule 4 brought in by amendment with retrospective effect in 1976 disentitled th