IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 2656 of 2008. Decided on: 04.03.2009. Shri Rajinder Singh. … … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and Another. … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The case of the petitioner in brief is that the benefit of office order Annexure A-3 dated 2nd June, 1986 has not been granted to him. The petitioner is an ex-service man and he joined State employment on 7th January, 1991. He was drawing higher salary while serving in the Army. The notification Annexure A-3 has been issued to mitigate the hardship of the Ex-service men by protecting their salary in case they are put in lower pay-scale on their public employment in the Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - State. There is no explanation why the notification dated 2nd June, 1986 (Annexure A-3) has not been implemented qua the petitioner for protecting his basic salary which he was getting in the army. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the notification dated 2nd June, 1986 (Annexure A-3). Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to calculate the arrears due to the petitioner as per Annexure A-3 dated 2nd June, 1986 within a period of four weeks from today. The amount payable to the petitioner will also carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment. However, there shall be no order as to costs. March 04, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge.