IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.: 5426 of 2008 Date of decision: 30.6.2010 Constable Parma Nand … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Yudhveer Singh vice Mr. K.D.Shreedhar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the benefit of the past service rendered by him prior to his seeking voluntary retirement be given while fixing his salary on his re- employment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed as a constable in the police department on 30.12.1971 and continued to work till 31.5.1992. The petitioner admittedly applied for voluntary retirement and his request was acceded to by the State and he was voluntarily 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 retired from service on 31.5.1992. Two years later the petitioner filed an application before the respondents praying that he may be reemployed in service. The petitioner was granted reemployment dehors the rules and a condition was laid down that in case he deposits the amount of gratuity and commutable pension already received by him in the Government treasury then the previous service would be counted for future pension and in case he does not deposit this amount then the former service could not be counted for pension. It was made clear that his past service would not be counted for any other purpose. The petitioner accepted this offer and joined service and thereafter represented that his pay should be fixed by taking into consideration the previous service rendered by him. This request was rejected by the State and this has given rise to the present petition. 3. From the reply of the State and the other material on record it is obvious that in fact there is no power vested in the State to grant re- employment to an employee who seeks voluntary retirement and stands actually voluntarily retired. 3 The re-employment can only be given to those police officials who are covered under Punjab Police Rule 12.25. This rule does not cover an employee who seeks voluntary retirement. The petitioner, therefore, has to be treated as a fresh employee for all intents and purposes. 4. The next argument of Shri Yudhveer Singh, learned vice counsel for the petitioner, is that one similarly situate employee Hans Raj was given benefit of past service and his pay was fixed in the scale of Rs.450-700. That was an order passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case. There is nothing on record to show what was the previous service rendered by Shri Hans Raj. In any event just because the Government has taken a wrong decision in one case does not mean that some other employee can invoke the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Two wrongs can never make a right. The petitioner who had sought voluntary retirement had to be treated as a fresh employee and his past service could not be taken into account for fixing his pay. However, since the petitioner deposited the amount of 4 pension, etc, the previous service would obviously count for his pension but his pay has to be fixed by treating his employment as a fresh one. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. 30th June, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.