Disposed¶20

Jasbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jul 2025CWP/4871/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-4871-2019; Jasbir Singh v. State of Haryana; High Court of Punjab and Haryana; Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.; decision 23.07.2025; counting of military service 28.06.1985 to 01.10.1990 for pay fixation/increments and pension; rejection letter dated 29.11.2018 by Additional Chief Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department, Haryana; Rule 18 Punjab Civil Services Rules as applicable to Haryana; disposal with consent without commenting on merits; liberty to file detailed representation; reasoned and speaking order within four months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation for grant of benefits under the applicable Service Rules; respondents directed to consider and decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order within four months of its submission. ¶20

Jasbir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's claim for counting his military service from 28.06.1985 to 01.10.1990 for pay fixation/increments and pension, rejected by the respondents' letter dated 29.11.2018, is admissible under the applicable Service Rules.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

With the consent of the parties and expressly without commenting on the merits, the petition is disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to submit a detailed representation for grant of benefits under the applicable Service Rules.

¶20

Key takeaways

On submission of the representation by the petitioner, the respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four months thereafter.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (CWP-4871-2019), Jasbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others, decided 23.07.2025 by Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral): Petition sought quashing of letter dated 29.11.2018 of the Additional Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Haryana, Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department, rejecting the petitioner's claim for counting his military service from 28.06.1985 to 01.10.1990 for pay fixation/increments and pension. Counsel for the petitioner sought liberty to make a detailed representation for grant of benefits under the applicable Service Rules, referring to Rule 18 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules as applicable to Haryana; the Addl. AG Haryana raised no objection. The petition was disposed of with the consent of the parties and without commenting on the merits, with liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation, which the respondents were directed to consider and decide by a reasoned and speaking order within four months of its submission.

¶1

216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP-4871-2019 Date of Decision: 23.07.2025

JASBIR SINGH

...PETITIONER

Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

¶9

Present:Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶10

Mr. Rahul Dev, Addl. AG Haryana

¶11

¶12

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Seeking quashing of the letter dated 29.11.2018 passed by respondent(s) No.1-Additional Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Haryana, Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department whereby the claim of the petitioner for counting his military service from 28.06.1985 to 01.10.1990 for pay fixation/increments and pension has been rejected relying on the notification which is alleged to be not applicable, the instant writ petition has been filed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the claim of the petitioner has to be considered in light of the prevalent Rules and the instructions which were contrary to Rules could not have been relied upon, however, in the written statement, one of the objections taken by the respondent was to the effect that the Rule relied upon by the petitioner had already been repealed. He further contends that insofar as the aforesaid reason assigned, the same invariably would justify passing of

¶15

VISHAL SHARMA 2025.07.29 12:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD

¶16

CWP-4871-2019

¶17

-2-

¶18

the said order, however, he submits that the respondent(s) have thereafter notified the new rules wherein a similar provision for mandating the respondent(s) for counting military service rendered by an employee has been provided for under Rule 18 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, as applicable to Haryana for pension and other benefits. He further contends that he may be granted liberty to make a detailed representation to the respondent(s) for grant of benefits under the applicable Service Rules and direction be issued to the respondent(s) to consider the claim of the petitioner in light of the applicable Rules for grant of such benefits as are admissible to him, in a time-bound manner.

¶19

Mr. Rahul Dev, Addl. AG Haryana does not have any objection to the above request.

¶20

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the consent of the parties and without commenting on the merits of the case, with a liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation. On submission of the representation by the petitioner, the respondent(s) are directed to consider and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four months thereafter.

¶21

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE

¶22

23.07.2025 Rahul Joshi

¶23

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶24

VISHAL SHARMA 2025.07.29 12:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD

Jasbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balraj Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Mahender Singh @ Mohinder Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Puran Chand Vs Food Corporation of India and Ors.

Hakam Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another

Rajvir Singh Vs State of Haryana through Additional Chief Secretary Haryana, Irrigation Department

Hari Ram Vs State of Haryana and Others