Pre-Emergency Army Service Cannot Be Counted for Seniority and Increments Where Civil Appointment Was Made After 1976 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: Duli Chand v. State of Haryana and Others

Date of Judgment: 4 August 2026

Citation: RSA-762-2009

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harkesh Manuja

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an ex-serviceman who joined the Army before the proclamation of the National Emergency on 26 October 1962 and entered Haryana Government civil service only after the 1976 amendment to the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965, is not entitled to count his military service for seniority, increments and other consequential service benefits.

The Court drew a crucial distinction between the unamended and amended definitions of “military service” under Rule 2 of the 1965 Rules. Under the unamended Rule, military service actually rendered during the Emergency qualified irrespective of when the person had enrolled. After the 1976 amendment, however, the benefit was confined to persons who had themselves been enrolled or commissioned during the period of Emergency.

The Court further clarified the scope of Ex. Capt. K.C. Arora v. State of Haryana, AIR 1984 SC 1858, holding that the Supreme Court did not invalidate the 1976 amendment altogether. Its invalidity was confined to its prejudicial retrospective application against persons whose rights had already accrued before the amendment. Therefore, a person who entered civil service only after the amendment cannot rely upon K.C. Arora to claim benefits under the earlier, unamended Rule.

Summary: The appellant, Duli Chand, served in the Indian Army from 21 December 1961 until October 1976. Thereafter, he joined Haryana Roadways as a Conductor on 17 August 1978 and ultimately retired on 31 December 1998. He claimed that the military service rendered by him during the First National Emergency from 26 October 1962 to 10 January 1968 was required to be counted towards seniority and consequential service benefits under the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965. He accordingly claimed seniority, five years’ wartime increments and selection grade.

The State resisted his claim on the ground that he had joined the Army before the National Emergency was proclaimed. By virtue of the Haryana Government’s 1976 amendment to Rule 2 of the 1965 Rules, the definition of “military service” was restricted to service rendered by persons who had been enrolled or commissioned during the Emergency itself.

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rejected Duli Chand’s claim. The courts held that since he had enrolled in the Army before the Emergency and entered Haryana Roadways service after the 1976 amendment, his case was governed by the amended Rules and he was therefore not entitled to the claimed military service benefits.

Before the High Court, the appellant principally relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Ex. Capt. K.C. Arora v. State of Haryana. He argued that since the notification amending Rule 2 had been declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court, the unamended definition of “military service” survived and his service actually rendered during the Emergency had to be counted, notwithstanding that he had initially enrolled in the Army in 1961.

The High Court therefore formulated the central issue as whether a person who enrolled in the Army before the National Emergency but entered civil service only after Rule 2 had been amended could nevertheless claim that military service towards seniority and increments under Rule 4 of the 1965 Rules.

A significant part of the judgment concerns the textual difference between the two versions of Rule 2. The comparative chart showed that under the original Rule, the words “during the period of operation of the proclamation of emergency” qualified the service rendered. Thus, what mattered was whether military service was actually rendered during the Emergency. The amended provision shifted the emphasis to the date of enrolment or commissioning, thereby restricting the concession to persons who joined the Armed Forces during the Emergency.

The High Court then closely examined K.C. Arora. It noted that the persons before the Supreme Court in that case had already entered State civil service in 1969, 1970 and 1971, before the 1976 amendment. Their entitlement under the unamended Rules had therefore already accrued. The Supreme Court struck down the amendment only insofar as it retrospectively prejudiced those already-accrued rights.

Duli Chand stood on a materially different footing. He joined Haryana Roadways only on 17 August 1978, nearly two years after the amendment had come into operation. On the date of the amendment, he held no civil post and consequently possessed no accrued right under the unamended Rule 2 that could have been retrospectively taken away. The High Court therefore held that the amended Rule 2 was the only version that ever governed his claim.

The Court further relied upon the Full Bench decision in Dei Chand Phaugat v. State of Haryana, 1980 SCC OnLine P&H 91, which held that under the amended Rules the benefit was available only to persons who joined and rendered military service during the Emergency. Since Duli Chand had admittedly joined the Army on 21 December 1961, he did not satisfy that requirement.

The issue was also found to be squarely covered by Dhan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 190. There, the Supreme Court dealt with persons who, like the appellant, had joined the Army before 26 October 1962, served during the Emergency and entered State service only after the amendment. The Supreme Court upheld the distinction between persons who joined the Army before the Emergency and those who enrolled during it, holding that the classification had a rational nexus with the object of the Rules and was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16.

Accordingly, the High Court concluded that the appellant could not claim seniority, wartime increments, selection grade or other military service benefits under the 1965 Rules merely because a portion of his Army service coincided with the National Emergency.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, holding that Duli Chand was not entitled to the claimed military benefits under the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965.

The Court found no illegality, perversity, misreading or misinterpretation in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court and accordingly affirmed their decisions.

The judgment importantly clarifies that K.C. Arora protects accrued rights; it does not revive the unamended Rule 2 for persons entering civil service after the 1976 amendment. For such later appointees, eligibility is determined under the amended definition, under which pre-Emergency enlistment does not qualify for the concession.