Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
10. In this light, the inquiry before us is whether respondent no. 4 would qualify as an “ex-serviceman” under Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, 1982. In so far as the appellant is concerned, there is no doubt about her eligibility under the “ex-servicemen” category after her release from the Indian Army upon completion of service. Our enquiry is thus confined to the eligibility of respondent no. 4, who joined the MNS in By G.S.R. 757(E) dated 04.10.2012. (2002) 4 SCC 154. ibid, paras 4-7. 812 2013 as a Short Service Commissioned officer and was released on 04.09.2018, upon completion of her service period with applicable entitlement to gratuity. We will now examine the status of IMNS.
11. Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 19437 was promulgated in exercise of powers under the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935. By virtue of Article 372 of the Constitution, it continues to remain in force to this date. The “Indian Military Nursing Service” is constituted as an auxiliary force of the Indian Military and as part of the armed forces of the Union. Section 3 of the MNS Ordinance provides for the constitution of MNS in the following terms: “Section 3. Constitution of Indian Military Nursing Service.- (1) There shall be raised and maintained, in the manner hereinafter provided, as part of the armed forces of the Union and for service with the Indian Military forces an auxiliary force which shall be designed the Military Nursing Services (India).” (emphasis supplied)
12. Section 4 of the MNS Ordinance, provides that: “The members of the Indian Military Nursing Service shall be liable for service only with forces and persons subject to the Army Act, 1950.” Section 5 provides that, “All members of the Indian Military Nursing Service shall be of commissioned rank and shall be appointed as officers of the Indian Military Nursing Service by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette.” Section 6 provides for eligibility for appointment, Section 7 for dismissal, Section 8 on training and performance of duties, and Section 9 deals with application of the Army Act, 1911 to members of IMNS, and reads: “Section 9. Application of Army Act and Indian Army Act, 1911 to members of Indian military Nursing Service–(1) The provisions of the Indian Army Act, 1911 shall, to extent and subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be prescribed, apply to members of the Indian Military Nursing Services as they apply to Indian commissioned officers, unless they are clearly inapplicable to women.” Hereinafter “MNS Ordinance”. [2025] 4 S.C.R. Irwan Kour v. Punjab Public Service Commission & Ors. 12.1 Further, Sections 10 and 11 deal with the power of the Central Government and the Chief of Army Staff to make Rules and Regulations under the MNS Ordinance, respectively.
13. From a combined reading of these provisions, it is clear that IMNS has been constituted as a “part of the Indian military” and “part of the armed forces of the Union”. Its personnel are officers of commissioned rank, whose service and conduct are regulated by the MNS Ordinance, 1943 and certain provisions of the Army Act, 1911, Regulations made by the Chief of Army Staff, and Rules made by the Central Government. This Court in Jasbir Kaur v. Union of India8 has also held that the IMNS is an auxiliary force of the Indian military and is a part of the Indian Army, but is a distinct and separate class in itself.9
14. We will now interpret the term “ex-serviceman” as defined under Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, 1982 to determine whether IMNS personnel are eligible thereunder. Before dealing with the language of the rule, it is essential to recognise its purpose and object. If we understand the significance of the policy of the State and the larger public purpose it seeks to subserve, the language of the law opens up and the interpretative journey will lead up to the right destination. 14.1 The State Government recognises the contribution of a resident of the State of Punjab by joining the armed forces of the Union. Serving the nation as part of the armed forces of the Union requires physical fitness and that has everything to do with age. As they serve and exit the armed forces, they may be spent force for military, but continue to be young and capable for civil life. Their engagement in civil society is not merely a matter of employment opportunity for ex-servicemen but also subserves the larger interest of the nation and also in building a fair and a healthy society.
15. The policy decision of the State Government is in recognition of the fact that the strength of army personnel from Punjab is about 89000 persons.10 This accounts for 7.7% of the Army’s rank and file even though its share in the national population is 2.3%. Effective resettlement of ex-servicemen is necessary to keep the morale of (2003) 8 SCC 720. ibid, paras 5 and 13. ‘Punjab second among all states in contributing to Army’s rank and file’, The Tribune (March, 15, 2021). 814 the serving members of the defence forces. If the resettlement of veterans is neglected, the talented youth of the nation may not be motivated to join armed forces.
16. Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, 1982, defines “ex-serviceman” as a person who has served in any rank, as a combatant or non-combatant, in the Naval, Military, or Air Force of the Union, and who has retired or been released from service in certain specified circumstances. Clause (iv) of the said rule is relevant for our purpose. It deals with persons who have been released from service after completing their period of engagement, otherwise than at his own request or by way of dismissal or discharge on account of misconduct or inefficiency and has been given gratuity.
17. Respondent no. 4 squarely falls within this definition. She served as a Short Service Commissioned officer in the IMNS. Rule 2(c) specifically includes “Military”, along with Navy and Air Force, and as per the MNS Ordinance, 1943 and this Court’s decision in Jasbir Kaur (supra), the IMNS is a part of the Indian Military and armed forces of the Union.
18. Considering the intention of the Punjab Rules, 1982 to provide employment opportunities to those who served in the armed forces, and the language of Rule 2(c) that specifically includes Military personnel, we see no reason to exclude IMNS personnel from the category of “ex-servicemen”. Further, respondent no. 4 satisfies the requirements of Clause (iv) of Rule 2(c) as she was released from service upon completion of her engagement period and was also paid gratuity.
19. At this stage, we find it necessary to deal with the submission made by the State of Punjab that IMNS must be excluded from “ex-servicemen” under the Punjab Rules, 1982 in view of certain clarifications dated 31.07.2019 and 10.08.2021 issued by the Kendriya Sainik Board, Ministry of Defence, Government of India to this effect. We are unable to agree with this submission as the Kendriya Sainik Board’s purpose and objective is to formulate, advise on, and implement resettlement and welfare policies for ex-servicemen and their dependents. While the Board may determine the eligibility for these schemes and policies, such determination does not have any bearing on the Rules formulated by the State Government to provide reservations to ex-servicemen. The clarifications issued by the Board do not have a direct bearing on the Punjab Rules, 1982, which are formulated in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution. [2025] 4 S.C.R. Irwan Kour v. Punjab Public Service Commission & Ors.
20. In view of the above, we agree with the decision of division bench of the High Court that respondent no. 4 is eligible to claim benefit under the category of “ex-servicemen” as defined in the Punjab Rules, 1982. This is so far as respondent no. 4 is concerned.
21. So far as the appellant is concerned, although the High Court has not specifically dealt with her appointment, we find it necessary to clarify the position. There is no dispute that the appellant was eligible under “ex-servicemen” category. The issue arises because the appellant and respondent no. 4 are perhaps competing for the same post under this category. The appellant was appointed to the post of Extra Assistant Commissioner (Under Training) in the Punjab Civil Services on 09.12.2022 and has uninterruptedly continued in service ever since. Considering the passage of time, and her appointment and continued service in the post, we are of the opinion that it will cause great injustice to her if her appointment is cancelled or set aside at this point in time. Her eligibility has not been doubted in any manner or at any time.
22. In view of the above discussion, we direct that respondent no. 4 qualifies as an ex-serviceman and must be considered under the “ex-servicemen” category. She is found to be meritorious. If she is otherwise eligible, she must be given an appointment. She will be entitled to notional benefits of service but will not be entitled to any backwages. We, however, clarify that the appointment of respondent No. 4 will not result in automatic termination of appellant’s service.
23. For the reasons stated above, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The civil appeal is dismissed with directions as indicated.
24. The parties shall bear their own costs.
25. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Result of the case: Appeal dismissed. †Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain