1969 Supreme(P&H) 87

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
P.C.Pandit, Gurdev Singh and H.R.Sodhi JJ.
Sunder Lal
Versus
State Of Punjab
Civil Writ No. 1164 of 1964,
Decided On : JULY 22, 1969

Headnote:

The Punjab Government Services (War) Amendment Rules, 1943 (the Rules) were promulgated by the Governor of Punjab in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 241 (1) (b) and (2) (b) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The main purpose of these Rules was to induce young persons to join the war and in order to safeguard their interests the said Rules were framed. The Rules were framed on 18th September, 1943, and were published in the Punjab Government Gazette on 24th September, 1943. They were framed by the Governor of the Punjab in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 241 (1) (b) and (2) (b) of the Government of India Act, 1935 and had to apply to all the services under the rule-making control of the Punjab Government. They came into force at once.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Clerks in the Irrigation Branch of the Public Works Department, Punjab Government, in 1946 and 1947. They had been working as civilian clerks in the Armed Forces during the Second World War and it was after their release from the Armed Forces that they joined the Irrigation Department as Assistant Clerks in a temporary capacity. Later, by an order dated 29th October, 1956, they were confirmed as Assistant Clerks with effect from 1st February, 1949. Subsequently, they were promoted as Sub-Divisional Clerks, then as Accounts Clerks and thereafter as Head Clerks. According to them, they were entitled to the benefit of the Punjab Government Services (War) Amendment Rules, 1943 (hereinafter called the Rules) which were promulgated by the Home Department of the Punjab Government by Notification No. 5011-G-43/59012 dated 18th September. 1943 and were published in the Puniab Government Gazette dated 24th September, 1943, at Lahore. In 1960, they received notices from Respondent No. 2, asking them to show cause why the war service benefits, which had been erroneously given to them, be not withdrawn and they be not de-confirmed. In reply to the show cause notices, they submitted their representations, but the same were rejected on 29th February, 1964. They were informed that the benefit of war service, which was wrongly allowed to them, had been withdrawn forthwith as regards seniority. As a result, respondent No. 2 then passed orders changing the dates of confirmation of the petitioners as Assistant Clerks to their disadvantage and showing the respondents, other than respondents Nos. 1 and 2, as senior to them. The case of the petitioners was that this was against Rules and would adversely affect them so far as their confirmation, promotion, seniority and pension etc., were concerned.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the Rules were framed on 18th September, 1943, and were published in the Punjab Government Gazette on 24th September, 1943. They were framed by the Governor of the Punjab in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 241 (1) (b) and (2) (b) of the Government of India Act, 1935 and had to apply to all the services under the rule-making control of the Punjab Government. They came into force at once. The Court also found that the Rules were intended to induce young persons to join the war and in order to safeguard their interests the said Rules were framed.

Issues: 1. Whether the benefit of Rule 6 of the Rules could be claimed by persons appointed to all the vacancies and not necessarily to war service reserved vacancies under Rule 3, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners? 2. Whether the petitioners in the instant case could claim that benefit on the date when they were confirmed, viz., 28th of October, 1956, because on that day, Rule 6 stood abrogated, since the operation of all the Rules was terminated with effect from 21st of January, 1953?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the benefit of Rule 6 of the Rules could be claimed by persons appointed to all the vacancies and not necessarily to war service reserved vacancies under Rule 3. The Court also held that the petitioners in the instant case could not claim that benefit on the date when they were confirmed, viz., 28th of October, 1956, because on that day, Rule 6 stood abrogated, since the operation of all the Rules was terminated with effect from 21st of January, 1953.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, but with no order as to costs.