IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.1715 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 15, 2011 Mani Ram ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Javed Khan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Anup Rattan, Central Government Counsel for respondent No.3. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner joined Indian Army on 12.3.1973 and retired on 31.3.1991. He was granted pension. When he joined Army, he was not even a matriculate, but while in service, he continued studying and passed Master Degree of Arts examination. After retirement from Army, he served a Cooperative Bank from 18.6.1996 to 20.3.2001. With effect from 1.4.2001, he was appointed as Lecturer in the Education Department of State Government, against a post Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É reserved for Ex-servicemen. He retired from that post on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.2010. He felt aggrieved by the quantum of pension and, on inquiry, came to know that his pay had not been fixed, taking into account his Army service as also the service rendered by him in a Cooperative Bank, after retirement from Army and because of that not only that his pension was fixed at a rate lower than what he was expecting, but also he had been paid less salary than due, while serving the Education Department. So, he filed a writ petition in this Court, which was registered as CWP No. 880 of 2010. That writ petition was disposed of by this Court in the following terms: “There will be a direction to the second respondent to take appropriate action for the fixation of the pay of the petitioner in the light of the steps taken by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. The second respondent will also file a report on the action thus taken in the matter before this Court within another period of one week.” 3. Petitioner thereafter procured NOC from Army and submitted it to the respondents. It appears that no change was effected in the pay of the petitioner, on submission of the NOC, and the amount of his pay and pension remained the same, as worked out at the time, when he retired and even when he filed earlier writ petition. He filed a Contempt Petition, which was dismissed, in view of the reply filed by the petitioner. É3É 4. Now, the petitioner alleges that respondents have not counted his entire military service as also bank service, while fixing his pay and because of that he has been deprived of two increments in the pay scale of the post of lecturer, to which he was appointed in the Education Department. He seeks the benefit for two increments, by counting his entire military service of 18 years. According to him, increments for only 16 years of military service had been added while fixing his pay. 5. Another relief claimed by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, is for encashment of one month salary which he claims was to his credit at the time, when he retired from Army. 6. Respondents have filed reply in which it is stated that as per instructions of the Government, issued vide Office Memorandum dated 19.9.2000, Annexure R-1, pay of an Ex-serviceman, on re-employment, cannot be fixed at a stage higher than the maximum of the pay-scale of the post to which he is appointed in civil service. It is stated that the maximum of the pay scale of the post of lecturer, to which the petitioner was appointed, was `10640/- and his pay was fixed at that stage from the date of his employment as lecturer in the Education Department. 7. I have gone through Annexure R-1, according to which, the pay of an Ex-serviceman, on retirement, cannot be fixed at a rate higher than the maximum of the pay-scale É4É of the post to which he is appointed in civil service. It is not in dispute that the pay of the petitioner was fixed at the maximum of the time scale of the post of lecturer on and with effect from the date of his employment as a lecturer. However, for the purpose of calculating quantum of pension, entire service, rendered by the petitioner, has been taken into account as qualifying service. 8. In view of the above stated position, there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner that his pay should have been fixed at a stage higher than at which it was fixed, because his pay was fixed at `10640/-, which was the maximum of the pay scale of the post of lecturer, to which he was appointed. 9. Another prayer made by the petitioner is for encashment of one month salary, which was allegedly to his credit, at the time of his retirement from Army. Respondents are directed to consider this claim of the petitioner, in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions, and decide the same within two months of the production of proof by the petitioner that there was one month earned leave to his credit when he retired from Indian Army. Petition stands disposed of. September 15, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.