IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 5498 of 2008 Date of decision: 16.11.2010 _________________________________________________________ Harnam Singh Guleria. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & another. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, J (Oral). The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7(i) to (ii): “7(i) That the respondent State may be directed to provide the further promotional avenues to the category of the applicant, i.e. Monument Attendant forthwith. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to give selection grade to the applicant, in order to avoid stagnation in service, forthwith.” 2. In the reply, filed on behalf of respondents, the following stand has been taken in paras 3(i), 6(viii) and 6(xi) (f): “3(i) Para agreed to the extent that the respondents are not denying the applicant from the benefit to be granted under Himachal Pradesh Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh State Non-technical Services) Rules 1972. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... The pay benefit has already been granted in favour of applicant vide this office letter No. Bhasni-131/85-Stha-5261 dated 26.3.87 but the seniority benefit is under consideration and same will be given in due course. 6(viii) Para agreed to the extent that the seniority list circulated vide dated 13.10.93 the name of the applicant was shown at Sr. No. 10 vide para No. 4 of the forwarding letter of the said seniority list clearly indicate that objection if any may be brought to the notice of the respondent No. 2 i.e. Director, Language and Culture within the period of 15 days so that any error or objection can be sorted out. 6(xi)(f) It is true that the respondents are bound to give all benefits to the ex-servicemen who are entitle for these benefits. There is no intention to deprived off the applicant. As and when there is any promotion/upgradation etc. is due to be given to the monument Attendants the same will be given considering their seniority. It is not true that the respondents are ignoring the applicant from any such benefits.” 3. In view of the above reply, it is manifest that the respondents have already granted the benefit of pay fixation on the basis of approved military service in favour of the petitioner. However, insofar as the claims for seniority and further promotional avenues set up by the petitioner are concerned, it is stated that the same were also under consideration of the respondents and it was undertaken that as and when a final decision was taken in the matter, the same would also be extended to the petitioner. It being so, as far as these surviving claims are concerned, it is ordered that the petitioner shall make a representation alongwith a copy of this judgment to respondent No. 1 within a period of one month, whereafter the said respondent shall consider the matter and decide the same within the next three months and grant consequential ...3... benefits, if any, to the petitioner within the same time, including consideration of his case for promotion from Class IV to Class III on and w.e.f. his juniors, if any, are found to have been promoted as such. 4. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 16th November, 2010 (virender)