Ex-Servicemen Eligible For Reservation Every Time: Major Relief By High Court

Key Highlights:

The Uttarakhand High Court has granted major relief to ex-servicemen regarding reservation in government jobs.
The court has struck down a government order that allowed reservation benefits only once to ex-servicemen.
The bench of Justice Manoj Tiwari and Justice Subhash Upadhyay delivered the verdict.

Background:

The Uttarakhand government had issued an order on May 22, 2020, stating that if an ex-serviceman had already availed reservation benefits once in a state government job, he would not be eligible for the same benefit again.

Petition Details:

Petitioner: Dinesh Kandpal (Ex-serviceman)
He challenged the government order in the High Court, calling it unconstitutional.
He stated that under the 1993 Act, ex-servicemen, freedom fighters, their dependents, and differently-abled individuals are entitled to regional reservation benefits.
The Act does not mention that the reservation is limited to a one-time benefit.

High Court Verdict:

The High Court quashed the government’s May 22, 2020, order.
The court clarified that ex-servicemen are entitled to reservation benefits every time they apply for a government job.
The court ruled that ex-servicemen cannot be denied reservation in future recruitments under any condition.

This ruling by the Uttarakhand High Court is a significant relief for ex-servicemen. It not only protects their rights but also ensures that they will receive reservation benefits each time they apply for government jobs. The judgment is a step toward recognizing the contribution and dignity of ex-servicemen. Here’s a structured case report in tabular format with all relevant facts, legal records, authorities, and findings of the case:

Case Report: Dinesh Chandra Kandpal vs State of Uttarakhand & Another

Field	Details
Court	High Court of Uttarakhand, Division Bench
Bench	Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari & Justice Subhash Upadhyay
Case Title	Dinesh Chandra Kandpal vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Case Number	Writ Petition (Service) Bench No. 491 of 2021
Neutral Citation	2025: UHC:6606-DB
Date of Judgment	2025 (Exact date not specified in extract)
Petitioner	Dinesh Chandra Kandpal, Ex-Serviceman (retired Hawaldar, retired on 31.01.2014, drawing service pension)
Respondents	State of Uttarakhand & Another
Counsel for Petitioner	Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate
Counsel for Respondents	Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General, State of Uttarakhand
Disputed Provision	Clause 8 of Government Order dated 22.05.2020 (issued by Additional Chief Secretary, Uttarakhand)
Impugned Policy	Adopted Central Government’s Office Memorandum dated 02.05.1985, restricting ex-serviceman reservation benefits to only one instance of re-employment in State services.
Statutory Framework	Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 (as applicable to Uttarakhand)
Key Statutory Provision	Section 2(c) – Definition of “Purva Sainik” (Ex-serviceman). No restriction excluding already employed ex-servicemen.
Petitioner’s Argument	– The 1993 Act provides reservation benefits without restricting multiple uses.- Clause 8 of G.O. dated 22.05.2020 is ultra vires the statute.- Executive instructions cannot curtail statutory rights.- Ex-serviceman status continues even after re-employment.
Respondent’s Argument	– Defence personnel are Central Government employees.- State rightly adopted Central policy restricting benefit to one re-employment.- Relied on Delhi High Court precedents interpreting 1985 O.M.
Court’s Observations	– Delhi HC cases only dealt with 1985 O.M., not with any statutory enactment.- No restriction in the 1993 Act regarding number of times benefits can be availed.- Executive instructions cannot override statutory provisions.- Classification under Clause 8 is artificial, discriminatory, and not supported by the Act.
Key Principles Cited	– Executive instructions can supplement but not supplant statutory law.- Policy decisions under Article 162 of the Constitution cannot override statutory rules or constitutional provisions.- When a field is covered by statute, contrary executive directions are invalid.
Supreme Court Precedents Relied Upon	– Executive instructions cannot override statute (various SC judgments referred).- State’s policy decisions are subservient to statutory recruitment rules.
Findings of the Court	– Ex-servicemen status continues irrespective of re-employment.- Clause 8 created “artificial classification” among ex-servicemen.- Restriction on multiple benefits not envisaged by the 1993 Act.- G.O. dated 22.05.2020 inconsistent with statutory provisions.
Final Decision	Clause 8 of G.O. dated 22.05.2020 quashed; Writ Petition allowed.
Ratio Decidendi	“Executive instructions cannot override statutory provisions. An ex-serviceman remains so under the 1993 Act even after re-employment, and benefits cannot be curtailed except by legislative amendment.”