10.3.2009 Present: Mr. K. B. Khajuria, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A. G. & Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A. G. for the respondents. CWP(T) No.3409/2008 (OA No.1064/96) Mr. Khajuria submits that the matter is covered by a decision rendered by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1105/96 titled as Vijay Singh v. State of H.P. & Anr. According to him, the petitioner’s case is similar, in fact better than the applicant in the said petition. The original petitioner was appointed as Work charged Cleaner with the respondent-State. With the passage of time, in terms of office order dated 27.2.1996, he was promoted as driver on work charged basis in the pay scale of Rs.950-2130+150. However, in terms of office order dated 1.8.1996, the original petitioner was reverted back with retrospective effect for the reasons that he did not fulfill the minimum educational qualification eligibility criteria. The original petitioner has challenged the aforesaid office order dated 1.8.1996 in the present proceedings. The Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Work charged driver in the department of Public Works Himachal Pradesh undoubtedly prescribes for minimum educational qualification but, however, the Government has relaxed the same in terms of letter dated 13.6.2002, which was also noticed by the Tribunal while passing the aforesaid order. In both the office orders, the original petitioner is placed higher than Shri Vijay Singh, who was the applicant in the aforesaid OA. The original petitioner has annexed the certificate (Annexure A-11) showing that he has passed 5th standard. He is an ex-serviceman. The Govt. having taken a conscious decision to relax the eligibility criteria qua educational qualifications and the original petitioner being otherwise eligible had a right of consideration for the next higher post. The respondents are thus directed to consider the case of the petitioners and pass a reasoned order within a period of three months from today. Undoubtedly, the original petitioner has retired but, however, any decision taken by the Government shall have a definite bearing on his pensionary benefits. Mr. Khajuria submits that the Government has already taken a decision giving benefits to such of those persons who represented in terms of the judgment of the Tribunal. This fact shall be taken into account while deciding the issue. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. March 10, 2009 (rana)