IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.: 2465/2008 Decided on: 6.3.2009 Baldev Ram. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1.No For the petitioner : Mr. K.C. Sankhyan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The petitioner approached respondent No.3 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur on 4.3.1987 for giving benefit of past services rendered by him in the Consolidation Department for the purpose of protection of pay. The same was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on 1.10.1992. He preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. The Divisional Commissioner, Mandi rejected the same on 8.12.1994. According to him, the case of the petitioner was not covered under rule 26 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Mr. K.C. Sankhyan, Advocate has strenuously 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 argued that the past services rendered by his client in the Consolidation Department were bound to be taken into consideration for the purpose of protection of pay. He has contended that the respondents have wrongly construed the provisions of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 as well as FR 22 (9) while rejecting his case. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner had not chosen to file the appeal before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) against the orders passed by the Divisional Commission. Since the efficacious and effective remedy is available to the petitioner for the redressal of his grievance, it is a fit case where the petitioner is required to be relegated to prefer an appeal before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) within a period of six weeks from today. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) against the decision of the Divisional Commissioner dated 8.12.1994 within a period of 4 weeks. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) is directed to decide the appeal within a period of 8 weeks after its receipt by a speaking order. In view of the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed. No costs. 6.3.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*