IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.2761/2008 Decided on:29.6.2009 Milap Chand. …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army as Driver on 16.6.1956. He was discharged on 30.6.1965. He was recruited as a Driver in the respondent- corporation on 2.10.1974 against a general vacancy. He was promoted to the post of Inspector in the year 1982. He made a representation for the first time on 30.1.1993 seeking the benefit of approved military service of nine years, ten months and sixteen days. The case of the respondent- corporation, in nutshell, is that since the petitioner was appointed before the cut-off date i.e. 1.11.1962, he could not be granted the benefit of the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 Himachal Pradesh Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972. The further case of the corporation is that the petitioner made representation for the first time on 30.1.1993 for counting his military service of nine years, ten months and sixteen days though he was appointed as a Driver against general vacancy on 2.10.1974. Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate has strenuously argued that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh Non- Technical Services) Rules, 1972. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate has submitted that since the petitioner was recruited prior to 1.11.1962, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefits available under the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 16.6.1956. He was discharged on 1.5.1965. He was appointed as a Driver in the respondent-corporation against the general vacancy. The benefit of the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972 cannot be enlarged to the persons who were appointed before cut off date i.e. 1.11.1962. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and another versus Piar Singh, 2002 (6) SLR 24 have held that there cannot be a case of discrimination when people joining in normal times and people joining Army when country is faced with war are treated differently. Their Lordships have held as under: 3 “In our considered opinion the date 1.11.1962 has a direct bearing with the date on which the country faced the disturbances on account of war with China and by no stretch of imagination the said date can be said to be a date of hatch and therefore is arbitrary and irrational. We are also of the opinion that these employees who have already served in civil services, many of them must have retired from service could not be permitted to raise this plea only after the judgment in Kali Das's case which was implemented not being assailed by the state. Even from equitable consideration they are not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the tribunal. In the aforesaid circumstances we set aside the impugned judgment of the tribunal and allow these appeals. Their Lordships in State of Himachal Pradesh and another versus Anjana Devi and others, (2009) 5 SCC 108 have held that the persons appointed on or after 3.5.1983 and those appointed prior to 3.5.1983 are not of the same class and different yardsticks could be applied to them. Their Lordships have held as under: ”17. As persons appointed on or after 3.5.1983 and those appointed prior to 3.5.1983 are not of the same “class”, different yardsticks could be applied to them. The respondents could have complained of discrimination only if a benefit had been introduced retrospectively by fixing a cut-off date arbitrarily thereby dividing a single homogeneous class into two groups and subjecting them to different treatments. That is not the case here. Choice of the date 3.5.1983 for extension of benefit of option is not an arbitrary selection of a cut- off date. It is logical and rational, being the date on which reservation was made applicable to technical services. Thus ex-servicemen appointed to technical services were entitled to the benefits conferred by the 1985 Rules only if they were: (a) appointed to a reserved 4 vacancy created under the 1985 Rules; or (b0 appointed to a non-reserved vacancy after reservation came into effect, that is, on or after 3.5.1983,but exercised the option to accept a reserved vacancy occurring subsequent to his vacancy”. Moreover, the petitioner was appointed against the general vacancy on 2.10.1974. He made a representation belatedly on 30.1.1993. He has filed the present petition after he retired from the service on 30.6.1995. This petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Accordingly, in the light of above and the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. 29.6. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*