IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 15159 of 2008 (OA 1396/07) Date of Decision : May 19, 2010 Sh. Ram Prashad Sharma Petitioner Versus H. P. University Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondent : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner was appointed as Security Man (Vigilance) with the respondent-University w.e.f. 4.1.1976. Prior to that he had served the Indian Armed Forces for a period of more than seven years. On 12.3.1992 the respondent-University notified Himachal Pradesh University Employees (Ex-servicemen) Pay Fixation Rules, 1991. Petitioner’s pay was to be fixed in terms thereof. Which was done, after taking his option, vide order dated 19.5.1995 (Annexure A-4) whereby his pay was fixed at Rs. 1440/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986, in the pay scale of Rs. 1200 – 2100. This pay scale was in effect till Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 16.1.2007 when the respondent took a decision to reduce the same purportedly on the basis of notification dated 24.8.1995. 2. In reply, the respondent have tried to justify the action being prompted by the Local Audit Department which is a State agency. 3. Notification dated 24.8.1995 (Annexure A-5) reads as under:- “ HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY ‘GENERAL ADMINISTRATION SECTION’ No. 3-32/94-HPU(Genl) Dated:Shimla-5, the 24th Aug.,1995. ‘NOTIFICATION’ The Executive Council vide resolution No. 26(11) of its meeting held on 3.10.1994 has been pleased to adopt H.P. Government rules framed/issued from time to time for the fixation of pay of ex-servicemen employed in this University w.e.f. 3.10.1991 for future cases of appointment. The earlier notification No. 3-1/78-HPU(Genl)Vol-IV dated 12.3.1992 shall be applicable in the case of existing incumbents and shall stand superseded w.e.f. 3.10.1994. Sd./- (A. R. Chauhan) REGISTRAR” 4. This notification does not apply to the facts of the instant case at all. Admittedly petitioner was appointed with the respondent/ university in the year 1976 itself. Whereas the notification in question was to apply only with prospective effect. 5. That apart, prior to the issuance of the impugned order dated 16.1.2007 (Annexure A-7), no notice was ever issued to the petitioner who was on the verge of his retirement and just fifteen days prior to the same was handed over the impugned order. 3 6. It could not be pointed out as to how the notification (Annexure A-5) was applicable to the facts of the instant case. Hence the action of the respondent, which cannot be said to be in accordance with law, is quashed. Consequently the respondent is directed to disburse all retiral benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law. Needful be done within a period of four months from today. Petition stands allowed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 19, 2010 (PK)