Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

HC declares provisions of recruitment rules ultra vires, orders arrears for veterans

Says rules created an untenable sub-class within a homogeneous group of pensioners
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
Punjab and Haryana High Court. File photo
Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declared parts of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen (First Amendment) Rules, 2012 and 2018, ultra vires the Constitution, terming these discriminatory and arbitrary. It quashed provisions limiting the benefits of pension and increments to ex-servicemen appointed to civil posts after January 1, 2012, while denying arrears for periods prior to that date.

The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma noted that the rules created an untenable sub-class within a homogeneous group of pensioners. The retained provisions arbitrarily differentiated among ex-servicemen, who served during the Second National Emergency depriving some of the benefits granted to others.

The petitioners had challenged the validity of a provision inserted into Rule 8-B of the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982, via an amendment introduced through a notification dated April 10, 2012. The contested provision dealt with the eligibility criteria for benefits, such as increments and pension, for ex-servicemen who rendered military service during the Second National Emergency.

Advertisement

Originally, the 1982 Rules provided some benefits only for service during the First National Emergency (1962-1968). A 2009 amendment extended those benefits to the Second National Emergency, but with conditions.

The 2012 amendment further limited benefits to ex-servicemen employed in government service as of December 1, 2011, or appointed afterward. Although a 2018 amendment later removed some restrictive conditions and clarified benefits were not retroactive, it did not grant arrears for the period before 2012.

Advertisement

The court emphasised that the retained provisions violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by failing the test of intelligible differentia and lacking a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper