The main legal point established in the judgment is that retired army personnel, who joined the army before the emergency, are not entitled to pension benefits in the civil service based on their military service.

P. SATHASIVAM, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 25. 03. 2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and haryana in C. W. P. No. 6126 of 2003 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition of the 1st respondent herein. 2. The brief facts in nutshell are as under: respondent No. 1 herein, who was a matriculate, joined as sepoy in the Indian Army on 13. 09. 1961. Respondent No. 1 improved his qualification and after obtaining one year teacher"s training at AEC Training College and Centre, panchmari, Madhya Pradesh, appointed as Education instructor (Hawaldar) on 12. 10. 1967. He retired on 30/9/1987 as Naib Subedar. His date of birth is 16/1/1944. He was 43= years old at the time of his retirement. On 10/5/1988, respondent"s name was sponsored by the Employment exchange for the post of JBT Teachers in the Punjab education Department. He appeared for the interview but the selection Committee refused to consider his case on the ground that he was not fulfilling the qualification for the post. According to the respondent, the training acquired by him during his service in the army is declared as equivalent to the training required for the post of primary school teachers as per government instructions. By letter dated 9. 8. 1988, Director public Instructions informed the Director Sainik Welfare, punjab that according to 'directory of Education' of Service trades with Civil Trades and Guide to Registration of Defence services Applicants of employment' Army Education Corps is equal to a Primary School Teacher in Civil Trade. On 29. 8. 1988, respondent submitted a representation to the recruitment Committee for considering his case in view of the instructions issued by the Director Public Instructions. On 1. 08. 1992, when the Education Department, Punjab again invited applications for the post of JBT Teachers by issuing an advertisement, he applied for it and was selected. On 31. 3. 1994, respondent got an appointment letter and he joined at Government Primary School, Ludhiana on 22. 4. 1994. At the time of joining, he was drawing his defence pension and he was allowed to draw his defence pension. He was to retire on 31. 1. 2002. Before superannuation, on 10. 10. 2001, the respondent submitted his pension case to the Accountant general, Punjab through Block Primary Education Officer, pakhowal District, Ludhiana. The Accountant General, punjab rejected the case of the respondent for pension on the ground that the service rendered by him on the civil side is seven years, nine months and nine days which is less than 10 years and his service rendered in defence cannot be counted in the civil service as there is a gap of more than three years. On 31. 8. 2002, the respondent served a legal notice of demand for granting him gratuity and pension in civil side by taking into consideration his service in the army. In February, 2003, the respondent filed writ petition before the High Court praying for quashing of the order dated 2. 11. 2001 of the accountant General, Punjab and for counting the service rendered by him in the army. The High Court allowed the writ petition in terms its decision in Dev Dutt, ASI vs. State of punjab and Ors. , 1996 (7) SLR 807 and directed the State to re-compute the pension of the respondent herein and to make the payment within six months. Dissatisfied with the said order, the State filed the present appeal before this Court.

( 3 ) WE heard Mr. Ajay Pal, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Shikha Roy Pabbi, learned counsel for 1st respondent.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant State of punjab vehemently contended that inasmuch as the respondent-herein who had admittedly joined on 13/9/1961 as Sepoy in the Indian Army is not entitled to the benefits of the Punjab Government National Emergency Rules, 1965 when emergency was declared from 26/10/1962 to 9/1/1968. He also contended that the respondent who has rendered services of less t