Summary
The Court upheld reading down the Himachal Pradesh 1972 Rules so that military-service credit for civil seniority was confined to those joining the armed forces during emergency due to foreign aggression. Reservation and pay protection stood on a different footing. It declined reconsideration of the precedents and separately rejected the State’s appeal concerning its failure to offer an eligible employee the prescribed reserved-vacancy option.
Issues
- Whether peacetime military service could be counted for civil seniority under Rule 5(1).
- Whether the precedents required reconsideration because of contemporary military risks.
- Whether failure to offer the prescribed reserved-vacancy option could prejudice an employee.
Provisions considered
- Rules 3(1) and 5(1), Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972The reproduced reservation and military-service-credit provisions were considered separately; seniority credit under Rule 5(1) was read down in conformity with equality requirements. (¶¶ 4, 13–17, 26–32)
Held
- Reservation for rehabilitation and pay protection were permissible, but retrospective civil seniority affected earlier recruits and required weighty justification. Emergency entrants formed the exceptional category recognised by binding precedents; peacetime risks did not justify extending that exception to all ex-servicemen. (¶¶ 13–17, 26–29)
- The judgment stated that even emergency-service credit could operate only from attainment of the minimum eligibility for the civil post. The present prosecution-service appellants were ineligible for seniority credit because they were peacetime entrants. (¶ 30–32)
- The separate State appeal failed because the Government had not offered the employee its prescribed option to accept a reserved vacancy arising after initial appointment; he could not suffer for that omission. (¶ 35)
Result
Principal appeals dismissed; the delayed special leave petition dismissed on limitation and merits. The separate State appeal concerning the Peon’s reserved-vacancy option also dismissed.