IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 7798 of 2008. Reserved on: 25.05.2009. Decided on: 19.06.2009. Hem Raj. … … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and Another. … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was discharged from Indian Navy on 31.10.1989. He was offered appointment on daily wage basis in the Census Department. He worked on daily wage basis up to 28th February, 1991. Thereafter he was offered appointment as Supervisor in the Census Department on 30th April, 1991. This tenure came to an end on February 29, 1992. He Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - was appointed as Constable in Police Department on 10th September, 1993. He worked as a Constable up to 16th January, 1996. The State Government took a decision to absorb the retrenched staff of 1991- Cencus in various departments of the State Government. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk on daily wage basis on December 23, 1995. He sat in the examination conducted by the Public Service Commission on November 4, 1996. He was regularised on the basis of the recommendations made by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission as Clerk in Panchayati Raj Department on 22nd April, 1997. He joined his duties in Panchayati Raj Department as Clerk on 24th April, 1997. He made several representations to the department for fixation of pay and seniority on the basis of Demobilised Rules. The petitioner was ultimately adjusted against the vacancy meant for Ex-Servicemen. However, neither his pay was fixed nor the seniority was assigned to him as per Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of vacancies in H.P. State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972. The representation made by him was rejected by respondent No.2 on 20th April, 1999. He preferred an appeal and the same was rejected on 30th October, 1999 and the decision was conveyed to him vide communication dated 28th April, 2001. Ms. Ranjana Parmar has strenuously argued that her client is entitled to get his pay and seniority fixed as per Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of vacancies in H.P. State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules” for convenience sake). She then contended that the action of the respondents of treating the appointment of the petitioner as second civil - 3 - employment in the Panchayati Raj Department is not in accordance with law. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was recruited as Constable in Police Department on 10th September, 1993 and he worked there up to 16th January, 1996. He then contended that the pay of the petitioner was fixed as per the Demobilised Rules and his appointment in the Panchayati Raj Department is second civil appointment and thus, he is not entitled to get the benefit towards pay and seniority as per Rule 5 of the Demobilized Rules. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was discharged from Indian Navy on 31.10.1989. Initially he was engaged in Census Department. He voluntarily got himself recruited as Constable in Police Department. He was appointed as Constable on 10th September, 1993. He resigned from Police Department on 16th January, 1996. A bare perusal of Annexure R-II reveals that his pay was fixed by giving him the benefit of his approved military service. The appointment of the petitioner as Constable for all intents and purposes is to be counted as his first civil appointment. It will be apt at this stage to take note of Sub-Rule (i) of Rule 5 of Demobilised Rules which reads thus:- “5. Seniority and pay: - (1) Only the period of approved military service rendered after attaining the minimum age prescribed for appointment to the service concerned by the candidates appointed against reserved vacancies under the - 4 - relevant rules, shall count towards fixation of pay and seniority in that service. (This benefit shall however be allowed at the time of first civil employment only and it shall not be admissible in subsequent appointments of ex-servicemen who are already employed under the State/Central Govt. against reserved posts).” A bare perusal of this rule reveals that a person is to be granted the benefits of pay and seniority only on his first civil employment. In the present case, the petitioner has already availed this benefit as Constable and was not entitled to get the same when he sought second civil employment in Panchayati Raj Department. He was appointed as Clerk on regular basis in Panchayati Raj Department on 24th April, 1997. The department has also sought clarification from the Department of Personnel. It is only on the basis of the opinion given by the Department of Personnel and as per the language employed in Demobilised Rules that his representation was rejected on 20th April, 1999. He was appointed as Constable against the post reserved for Ex-Servicemen. Even though the petitioner has been treated to be appointed against the post reserved for Ex-Servicemen in the Department of Panchayati Raj, he cannot be granted benefit under Rule 5 of the Demobilised Rules. The moment the petitioner was appointed as Constable in Police Department against the post reserved for Ex-Servicemen, it was to be treated as first civil employment. He cannot claim benefits on his second civil employment after joining the Panchayati Raj Department on 24th April, 1997. - 5 - In view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no force in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. June 19, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge.