TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses Writ Petitions, grants benefits to military servicemembers.</h1> <h3>DHAN SINGH AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS</h3> The court dismissed Writ Petition Nos. 1159 of 1989 and 959 of 1989 and partly allowed Civil Appeal No. 1060 of 1990. A writ of mandamus was issued, ... - Issues Involved:1. Denial of benefits under the Emergency Concessions Rules due to amendments.2. Validity of the amendments made to the Emergency Concessions Rules.3. Classification and discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.4. Entitlement of ex-servicemen released on compassionate grounds to benefits under the Rules.Detailed Analysis:1. Denial of Benefits under the Emergency Concessions Rules Due to Amendments:The appellants, ex-servicemen re-employed in government service in Haryana, were denied benefits under the Emergency Concessions Rules due to amendments introduced by the Haryana Government. These amendments, made via notifications dated March 22, 1976, August 9, 1976, and November 5, 1976, altered the eligibility criteria for benefits related to increments, seniority, and pension.2. Validity of the Amendments Made to the Emergency Concessions Rules:The amendments to Rule 4(ii) and the definition of 'military service' in Rule 2 were challenged. The court noted that the amendments were made with retrospective effect from November 1, 1966, under Article 309 of the Constitution. The amendment dated November 5, 1976, which excluded those released on compassionate grounds from benefits, was previously struck down as violative of Articles 14 and 16 in Raj Pal Sharma v. State of Haryana.3. Classification and Discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution:The court examined whether the amendments, which confined benefits to those who joined the military during the emergency period (October 26, 1962, to January 10, 1968), were discriminatory. It was argued that the differentiation based on the date of recruitment was unreasonable and arbitrary, violating Article 14. However, the court held that the classification was reasonable. Those who joined the military during the emergency responded to a national call at a critical juncture and faced higher risks, forming a distinct class from those who joined before the emergency. The differentiation had a rational basis and was directly related to the objective of the legislation.4. Entitlement of Ex-Servicemen Released on Compassionate Grounds to Benefits under the Rules:The court reiterated that the proviso to Rule 4(ii), which excluded those released on compassionate grounds, had been struck down. Consequently, appellants 4, 5, 7, and 8, who were released on compassionate grounds, were entitled to benefits under the Rules. The court directed the respondents to grant these appellants the benefits of their military service.Conclusion:The court dismissed Writ Petition Nos. 1159 of 1989 and 959 of 1989 and partly allowed Civil Appeal No. 1060 of 1990. A writ of mandamus was issued, directing the respondents to give appellants 4, 5, 7, and 8 the benefits of their military service. The appeal was dismissed in other respects, and no order as to costs was made.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
