Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAGDISH CHAND versus HARYANA STATE THROUGH COLLECTOR GURGAON

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jagdish Chand v. Haryana State through Collector Gurgaon - RSA-2307-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 3092 (12 May 2006)

R.S.A. No.2307 of 2004 -: 1 :-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

R.S.A. No.2307 of 2004

Date of decision: May 12, 2006.

Jagdish Chand

...Petitioner(s)

v.

Haryana State through Collector Gurgaon & Ors.

...Respondent(s)

Present: Shri Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Narender Sura, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

This regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff whose suit for declaration to the effect that he is entitled for the benefit of military service in the civil employment, has been dismissed by both the courts.

It is an admitted fact that the appellant joined the Indian Army on 26.3.1951 for a career and served upto 21.12.1972 when he was retired on completion of the requisite length of service. During the interregnum, the appellant participated in Indo-China war (1962) and Indo-Pak war (1965). The appellant, having rendered service during the aforesaid two emergencies, claimed the benefit of military service in civil employment.

The question as to whether the benefit of military service rendered during 'emergency period' is admissible to those who joined the R.S.A. No.2307 of 2004 -: 2 :-

army as a career, or is restricted to those who joined the army at the need of the hour, namely, when emergency was declared, is no longer res-integra.

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors , 1991(1) PLR658 have held that the benefit of military service rendered during the emergency period is admissible to those only who joined the army during the emergency period.

In view of the aforesaid binding verdict, no relief can be granted to the appellant.

Dismissed.

May 12, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.