IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.12498 of 2008 Date of decision : September 30, 2011 Surinder Chand Katoch …Petitioner. Versus H.P.S.E.B and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioner had filed the present petition as Original Application before H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (now abolished), in the year 2005, seeking quashing of order dated 15th January, 2003, Annexure A-9, by which proposal for fixation of his pay, by giving him benefit of Navy service, has been rejected by respondent No.1. 2. Petitioner joined Indian Navy on 18th August, 1962. According to him, he joined Indian Navy as an Apprentice on 18th August, 1962 and was assigned the rank of EAP5 on 20th August, 1966. He retired from Indian Navy in the year 1976 and then joined as Junior Engineer with respondent No.1 He sought benefits of Navy service, in the form of pay fixation etc. His Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Drawing and Disbursing Officer proposed fixation of his pay, giving him benefit of Navy service, from August, 1962 to the year 1976 and submitted proposal to the Head Office. That proposal was rejected, vide Annexure A-9, on the ground that the petitioner had joined Indian Navy prior to 1st November, 1962 and the Rules, for providing pay-fixation benefit etc. to Ex-servicemen, were to be applicable to those Armed Forces personnel, who joined Armed Forces on or after 1st November, 1962. Petitioner challenged this order, alleging that though he joined Indian Navy on 18th August, 1962, but that was in the capacity of an Apprentice and not as a rank holder and that rank was allotted to him on 10th August, 1966, when he was enrolled as EAP5. 3. Respondents, in their reply, have taken the plea that the petitioner joined the Indian Navy prior to 1st November, 1962 and, hence, he is not entitled to benefits of seniority, pay-fixation etc. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner has referred to Section 10 of Indian Navy Act, 1957, which is reproduced below, and submitted that since the petitioner had been assigned the rank only in the year 1966, he is required to be treated as having joined …3… Indian Navy on 20th August, 1966, when he was designated as EAP5. “10. Commissions and appointments.-(1) Officers other than subordinate officers shall be appointed by commission granted by the President. (2) The grant of the commission shall be notified in the Official Gazette and such notification shall be conclusive proof of the grant of such commission. (3) Subordinate officers shall be appointed in such manner and shall hold such rank as may be prescribed.” 6. “Subordinate Officer” is defined in Section 3(23) of Indian Navy Act, 1957, as follows: “ “subordinate officer” means a person appointed as an acting sub-lieutenant, a midshipman or a cadet in any branch of the Indian Navy or the Indian Naval Reserve Forces, but does not include a cadet whilst under training in a joint service institution.” 7. Petitioner was inducted in Indian Navy in August 1962, per his own case. However, his plea is that initially he was an Apprentice and rank was assigned to him only in the year 1966, after he completed four years Apprenticeship. Petitioner’s counsel has produced a comparative chart, indicating the ranks of Indian Army, Indian Navy and Indian Air Force. As per this chart, there is no rank of EAP5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, Leading Seaman is EAP5. This rank of Leading Seaman is there in the chart relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. …4… 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to another paper, which he has produced today itself. The paper is titled as Artificer Apprentice Course (Electrical Branch). He refers to Column No.7 of this document, which reads as follows: “Remarks: Sailors, on completion of Apprentices’ training, will be awarded Certificate equivalent to Diploma in Electrical Engineering.” 9. Earlier, the Sailors were called Seamen, per definition of “Sailor” given in Section 3(20) of the Navy Act. Term “Sailor” was substituted for “Seaman”, vide amendment carried out by Act No.53 of 1974. 10. Now, the aforesaid remarks entry itself shows that during apprenticeship, the apprentices enjoy the rank of Sailors or Seamen and, therefore, submission made on behalf of the petitioner that he could not have been treated a rank holder prior to 1966, within the meaning of Section 10(3), read with Section 3(23) of the Navy Act, cannot be upheld. 11. In view of the abovestated position, the present petition is dismissed, being devoid of merit. Writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of. September 30, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J