Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Tek Chand, J.
Ram Rattan Bakshi
Versus
State Of Punjab
Civil Writ No. 2615 of 1966,
Decided On : DECEMBER 7, 1967
WAR SERVICE BENEFITS - GOVERNMENT WAR SERVICE AMENDMENT RULES - SECTION 241, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935 - The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the war service benefits under the Government War Service Amendment Rules framed under Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and that the Government's decision to deny him these benefits was without jurisdiction, ultra vires, and discriminatory.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in the Civil Veterinary Department of Punjab, volunteered for service in the Indian Army Veterinary Corps during World War II and served from April 1942 to December 1948. He applied for the fixation of his pay and seniority in accordance with the concessions given under the War Service Rules, but his request was rejected by the Government in 1956. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that he was entitled to the benefits under the rules and that the Government's decision was discriminatory.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to the war service benefits under the Government War Service Amendment Rules, which had the force of a statute. The court held that the Government's decision to deny the petitioner these benefits was without jurisdiction, ultra vires, and discriminatory. The court also found that the Government's circular letter fixing the date of 31st October 1956 as the cut-off date for submitting claims for war service benefits was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the war service benefits under the Government War Service Amendment Rules. 2. Whether the Government's decision to deny the petitioner these benefits was without jurisdiction, ultra vires, and discriminatory. 3. Whether the Government's circular letter fixing the date of 31st October 1956 as the cut-off date for submitting claims for war service benefits was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the war service benefits under the Government War Service Amendment Rules, which had the force of a statute. The court held that the Government's decision to deny the petitioner these benefits was without jurisdiction, ultra vires, and discriminatory. The court also found that the Government's circular letter fixing the date of 31st October 1956 as the cut-off date for submitting claims for war service benefits was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the Government's order denying the petitioner the war service benefits, and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Government to fix the petitioner's pay by allowing him the war service benefits in the same manner as was allowed to another similarly situated individual.
Tek Chand, J.
1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ of certiorari or mandamus and for quashing the order dated 11th of August, 1966, Annexure A-15, passed by the State of Punjab (respondent No. 1). There is also a prayer for a writ of mandamus to the respondents directing them to fix the pay of the petitioner by allowing him the war service benefits. The Director. Animal Husbandry, Punjab, is the second respondent.
2. The petitioner has been serving as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in the Civil Veterinary Department of Punjab from 1942. In the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, the Governor of Punjab framed rules known as the Government War Service Amendment Rules. The object of these rules was to induce persons to volunteer themselves for service for military duty in the Indian Veterinary Corps during the last war and certain attractive terms were offered. The Veterinary Assistants or Veterinary Assistant Surgeons who offered themselves for service in the Indian Army Veterinary Corps were allowed to retain their liens as well as seniority on the gradation list. The period spent by such personnel on approved active service while on military duty was to count double for pay and promotion (including the seniority in the Civil Veterinary Department) vide Annexure A-1.
The petitioner volunteered his services in the Second World War and served in the I. A. V. S., from April, 1942 to the 8th of December, 1948. On 11th of December, 1948, the petitioner addressed a communication to the Deputy Superintendent, Civil Veterinary Department, Kangra, asking for the fixation of his pay and seniority in accordance with the concessions given under the War Service Rules referred to above, vide Annexure A-2. This matter remained pending with the Government for very many years. On 9th of May, 1957, the petitioner was given his seniority in accordance with the rules but no decision about the fixation of his pay was communicated to him. He stated that he remained under the impression that the matter was being processed in the different departments of the Government.
3. In the meanwhile, another colleague of the petitioner who had served in identical conditions and who had also volunteered his services for military service had also made a similar representation for getting the benefits of pay and seniority. The petitioner says that it was in February, 1963, that he came to know that Shri Jagat Singh had been sanctioned his pay and seniority in accordance with those rules. The Governments decision in respect of Shri Jagat Singh was mentioned in a copy of letter from the Accountant General dated 6th oi February, 1962, vide Annexure A-3. It was stated that Shri Jagat Singhs service on military duty would count double for pay and promotion including seniority in the Civil Veterinary Department. It was consequently decided that he should be allowed benefit of pay in the relevant graded scale/time scale of pay for double the period as shown in the communication. Reference may also be made to copy of the Memo dated 9th of June, 1962 (Annexure A-4) indicating compliance.
4. On the concessions having been granted to Shri Jagat Singh the petitioner also made enquiries as to what had happened in his case and he learnt that his request had been rejected by means of a letter from the Assistant Accounts Officer dated 1st of February, 1956. The petitioners contention is that this was for the first time that he came to know, while on his own he was making enquiries, as to the fate of his case This communication is Annexure A-5 which is a copy of letter from the Assistant Accounts Officer, Simla, to the Director of Animal Husbandry Simla and forwarded to the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Ambala City.
This letter is reproduced below in extenso: "Subject: War Service concessions to Shri Ram Rattan V. A. S.
Memo.
The service boo
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
