IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 5490 of 2008. Decided on: October 28, 2010. Jagdish Chand …..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & anr. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG, for respondent No.1. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: “i) That the respondents may be directed to give to the applicant, the benefits of approved Military service towards pay fixation and seniority. ii) That the respondents may further be directed to give all consequential benefits, including promotion to the higher post after giving to the applicant the benefit of approved military service towards seniority.” 2. In the reply at paragraph 6(iii) & (iv), it is stated as follows: “6 (iii) & (iv): The contents of these paras are absolutely incorrect, but for, the fact that the applicant submitted representations as alleged. The applicant Jagdish Chand was appointed as Driver against open vacancy and not against Reserved Vacancy for Ex- serviceman as alleged. The applicant is not entitled to the benefits of Military Service under Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel Rules, 1972. This benefit is only available to those ex-serviceman who were enrolled in the Army on or after 1.11.1962 and re- employed against a reserve post for Ex-serviceman in the Civil Service. The case of the applicant does not even fall under the provision of H.P. Government Finance Department OM Dated 2.8.1983 as he had drawn last pay of Rs. 225/- in the Army whereas in the 2 Civil post he was appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 400-600.” 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of Rule 3 of the Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in H.P. State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972, he is entitled to the benefit under Rule 5. There is no specific reference of this aspect in the reply. There will be direction to the second respondent to look into the matter, with notice to the petitioner and take appropriate action thereon in accordance with law, adverting to the submissions referred to above, within a period of three months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment. It will also be open to the petitioner to file a supplementary representation while presenting the copy of this judgment. Consequential benefits, to which the petitioner if found eligible will also be disbursed within another one month. 4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. October 28, 2010. ( Justice V.K. Sharma ), (karan/vs) Judge.