IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.2540 /2008 Decided on:14.5.2009 Phula Singh Patyal. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioner : Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the Punjab Public Works Department (B&R) on 12.6.1957. He was allocated to the State of Himachal Pradesh after reorganization of the State of Himachal Pradesh. He was promoted to the post of Assistant on ad hoc basis on 5.1.1975. He filed Civil Writ Petition No. 101/1979 for regularization of ad hoc services. The writ petition was transferred to the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and registered as TA No. 306/1986. He was reverted from ad hoc promotion on 27.1.1983. It was made subject to the outcome of the decision of the writ petition. The transfer application 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 No. 306/1986 was decided on 28.7.1993. The order dated 27.1.1983 whereby he was reverted was quashed and set aside. He was deemed to have been appointed on regular basis with effect from 28.12.1974 as Assistant in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 225-500. He retired on 31.3.1993. Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that though the petitioner has been paid other monetary benefits, but he has not been granted the selection grade of Rs. 300-25-600 by the respondents on the basis of Annexure A-2 dated 17.11.1976. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the petitioner was not entitled to the selection grade on the basis of instructions dated 21.10.1982. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioner was deemed to have been appointed on regular basis as Assistant with effect from 28.12.1974. The similarly situate persons have been granted the selection grade of Rs. 300-25-600. A bare perusal of Annexure A-2 reveals that the selection grade was admissible to 20% of permanent posts and those temporary posts which had been in existence for three years or more years. The sanction was to take effect from 14.10.1976. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has wrongly relied upon letter dated 21.10.1982. The petitioner was not required to put in seven years of service as submitted in office memorandum dated 21.10.1982. His entitlement for selection grade was to be determined on the basis of memorandum dated 17.12.1976. Moreover, the office memorandum dated 21.10.1982 was to be applied prospectively. 3 Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure RA-1 dated 21.7.1995 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the selection grade to the petitioner on the basis of Annexure A-2 with effect from 14.10.1976 with interest @ 9% per annum within a period of six weeks from today. No costs. 14.5. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*