IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 4651 of 2008. Decided on: 26.7.2010. __________________________________________________ Bhandari Ram … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. ___________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petitioner, who had joined the Army on 21.3.1960, has filed and maintained the present petition for grant of the following substantive reliefs, vide para 7 (i) and (ii) of the petition: “(i) the respondents may be directed to refix the pay of the applicant by giving him the benefit of the approved military service along with all arrears thereof. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to pay to the applicant interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum on the arrears so calculated from the ate they became due to him.” 2. The petitioner has set up the claim for grant of benefit of approved military service on the strength of the provisions of Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972, which is opposed on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 behalf of the respondents on the following averments set up, vide para 6 (iv) of their reply:- “(iv) The action of the respondents to deny the benefit of approved military services to the applicant under Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972 due to his enrolment in the Army prior to 1.11.1962 is right, legal, just and under the Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.” 3. The objection raised by the respondents has force and is also supported by a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as State of H.P. and another versus Pyar Singh, 2002 (6) SLR 24. In this view of the matter, the case of the petitioner is not covered under the Rules ibid as he had joined the Army service prior to 1.11.1962, the appointed day stipulated thereunder. 4. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending CMP(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of as infructuous. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. July 26, 2010. (cr)