IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2930 of 2008. Date of Decision: 4th July, 2011. _______________________________________________________ Shri Garib Dass ....Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others … Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate, vice Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J (Oral). Heard and gone through the record. 2. The petitioner is an ex-serviceman and got re- employment after seeking retirement from the Indian Army, as a driver against the general category in the respondents-Corporation. He was regularized as such against the post of driver, but being an ex-serviceman no benefit of his approved military service to which he rendered in the Indian Army, as per provisions of ‘Demobilized Armed Forces, Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972’, was given despite the representations made by him to the higher authorities. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 3. In reply-affidavit the respondents submitted that the petitioner did not exercise his option when permanent vacancy became available to the ex- serviceman. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed against un-reserved vacancy. He was undoubtedly not entitled immediately on the appointment for the benefit of the Army service under the Rules aforesaid. Despite this, service conditions of the petitioner being an ex-serviceman were to be regulated by the Rules and the instructions issued thereunder, from time to time, one of such instructions relevant to the present case is contained at page 791 of ‘Handbook on Personnel Matters’ (Vol.I), which reads as under: “I am directed to address you on the subject noted above and to say that the various concessions granted under the Demobilized Armed Forces, Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972, modified vide this department notification of even number, dated the 28th March, 1972 are admissible only when the persons concerned are selected against the reserved vacancies. In this connection, it is clarified that in order to remain within the scope of the relevant rules, referred to above, the concession in the question can not be extended against un- reserved vacancies. But where a released army personnel has qualified against a non-reserved - 3 - vacancy and has been opted against a general unreserved vacancy in the first instance, he should be given an option (only at the time of first appointment) to accept a reserved vacancy even if, it occurs subsequent to his appointment. This will automatically give the benefit of concession like seniority etc. in the manner specified in the rules ibid”. 5. The above instructions apparently clarify that even in a case where an ex-serviceman is selected and appointed against an ‘unreserved civil post’ for the first time, he should be given an option to accept a ‘reserved vacancy’ even if it occurs subsequent to his appointment. The instructions aforesaid are apparently intended to give benefit of Rules to those Ex-servicemen who are selected and appointed against ‘unreserved post’ but by necessary implication, the instructions will result even in eliminating discrimination in the matter of civil employment to the ex-servicemen. 6. The existence and applicability of these instructions are not denied by the respondents- Corporation. It is implicit that after making representations to the higher authorities of the respondents, they have not given an option to the petitioner. Had such option been given by the respondents-Corporation, he would have given his option. Thus, the respondents are under obligation to - 4 - treat the petitioner as having been appointed for the post having reserved for the ex-serviceman from the date from which the vacancy became available. 7. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, this petition is allowed, the respondents are hereby directed to seek an option from the petitioner from the date, the post became available for the ex-serviceman within one month from the receipt of copy of this judgment and after the petitioner exercised his option, he be considered from that date as having been appointed against the vacancy reserved for ex-serviceman with all consequential benefits within three months thereafter. 8. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. 9. In view of the disposal of the main petition, all pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. July 4th, 2011. (Surinder Singh), (rc) Judge.