Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Ex-Servicemen Cannot Claim 1965 Rules Benefits for Military Service During Second Emergency Without Government Notification; Protects Already Released Benefits from Recovery through LRs
Case Name: Registrar, CCS Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar and Another v. Geeta Devi and Others
Date of Judgment: 01 July 2026
Citation: RSA-2005-2009
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harkesh Manuja.
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that under the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965, the benefit of counting military service for increments and pension is confined to service rendered during the First National Emergency (1962–1968), unless the Government specifically declares service during any subsequent Emergency to be “military service” under the Rules. An ex-serviceman who merely continued in military service during the Second Emergency (1971–1973) cannot claim benefits for that period solely because his service overlapped with the Emergency. However, the Court also held that where monetary benefits had already been paid pursuant to valid judicial orders and there was no fraud or misrepresentation by the employee, such benefits cannot be recovered from the legal heirs after the employee’s death.
Summary: The appeal arose from concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court directing CCS Haryana Agricultural University to grant an ex-serviceman the benefit of counting his military service during both the First Emergency (26 December 1962 to 10 January 1968) and the Second Emergency (3 December 1971 to 15 April 1973) for fixation of pay, increments and pension under the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965. The University challenged these findings, contending that the Rules recognised only military service rendered during the First Emergency and that no statutory provision or Government notification extended similar benefits to service rendered during the Second Emergency. The High Court examined the scheme of the 1965 Rules and relied extensively upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Surjit Singh Brar and earlier precedents, including Ex. Captain A.S. Parmar, to hold that only service rendered during the First Emergency qualifies unless a subsequent Government declaration expands the definition of “military service.” The Court further referred to decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, including Capt. K.S. Shergill (Retd.), Pritam Singh, Rajender Kumar and the Full Bench decision in Dei Chand Phaugat, which recognised that those who voluntarily enrolled during the Emergency constitute a distinct class entitled to the statutory concession. Since the respondent had joined the Armed Forces in 1963 and merely continued in service during the Second Emergency as part of his existing contractual obligation, he was not entitled to claim benefits for the latter period. Accordingly, the judgments of the courts below were modified by restricting the benefit only to the First Emergency period. Nevertheless, considering that the employee had already received the monetary benefits during his lifetime pursuant to valid judicial decrees and had died before the appeal was finally decided, the Court refused to order recovery from his legal heirs, following the equitable principles laid down in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana.
Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was partly allowed. The High Court modified the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court by holding that the respondent was entitled to increments and pension only by counting military service rendered during the First National Emergency under the 1965 Rules and not for the Second Emergency period. However, the Court directed that no recovery shall be made from the legal heirs of the deceased employee in respect of benefits already paid pursuant to the earlier judicial decrees, as there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation.