IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 2809 of 2008, Decided on: 27.03.2009. Partap Singh. … … … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. … … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?No.1 For the petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R. K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate has confined his case only to the extent that the pay of his client was to be protected on the basis of Instructions dated 2.8.1983. The petitioner had joined the Indian Army on 25.10.1956. He retired from the service in the rank of Honorary Lieutenant on 31.9.1986. He had put in twenty nine years, nine months and seven days approved military service. He was re-employed in the respondent-department as Junior Engineer and he joined against the post Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. - 2 - reserved for Ex-Military Personnel on 22.1.1992. His pay was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200. He made several representations for getting his pay re-fixed under Rule 5 (1) of the Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972 and also on the basis of Instructions dated 2.8.1983. The case of the petitioner is not covered under the Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972 since he joined the Indian Army before 1.11.1962. However, the pay of the petitioner was to be protected on the basis of Annexure A-11, dated 2.8.1983. These instructions have been issued qua Ex-Military personnel to whom the Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal State Non- Technical Services) Rules, 1972 were not applicable. The pay of the petitioner was required to be protected on the basis of para (b) of Notification dated 2.8.1983. It is not borne out from the record that the respondent while rejecting the case of the petitioner have taken into consideration the instructions issued vide Annexure A-11, dated 2.8.1983. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the decision dated 29.6.1993 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner by protecting his pay on the basis of instructions issued by Himachal Pradesh Finance (Regulation) Department, vide Annexure A-11, dated 2.8.1983 within a period of eight weeks from today. No costs. March 27, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (rkv). Judge. - 3 -