Purposive reading of ex-serviceman rules protects pensioned armed forces personnel from arbitrary exclusion from reservation benefits.

A pensioned armed forces member who completed the requisite service and left service with the employer's consent cannot be excluded from ex-serviceman reservation merely because the discharge was at his own request. The Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982 must be construed purposively to advance the welfare object of the scheme and avoid an arbitrary distinction between retirement, discharge, and release. On that reading, such a person falls within the definition of "ex-serviceman" and is entitled to be considered against the reserved vacancy.

---

---

Issues: Whether a member of the armed forces who was discharged at his own request after earning pension is an "ex-serviceman" within Rule 2(e) of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982.

Analysis: The reservation scheme for ex-servicemen is a beneficial provision intended to assist former defence personnel in civil employment. The definition in the Rules had to be construed purposively and reasonably so that the object of the scheme was not defeated by a narrow distinction between retirement, discharge, and release. A person who has rendered the requisite service, earned pension, and left the armed forces with the employer's consent cannot be denied the benefit merely because the discharge was recorded as being at his own request. Treating such persons differently from other pensioned ex-servicemen would create an irrational class within a class and would be arbitrary and discriminatory. The exclusionary language in the amended definition did not justify denial of the benefit in the present case.

Conclusion: Yes. The appellant was entitled to be treated as an ex-serviceman and to be considered against the reserved vacancy.

Ratio Decidendi: A pensioned member of the armed forces who has completed the requisite service and left service with consent is to be treated as an ex-serviceman for reservation purposes, and the definition must receive a purposive construction to avoid arbitrary exclusion.

---