IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 8626 of 2008 Decided on : 07.12.2010. Bidhi Chand ..…Petitioner. Versus State of H.P Through Secretary and other. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (i) to (iii) :- “(i) That the respondent department may kindly be directed to fix the pay of the applicant owing to be approved military services rendered by him in the Indian Army. (ii) That the legitimate financial benefits due to the applicant after having cleared his Patwari Examination be also granted to him. (iii) That it is further prayed that the applicant may also kindly be granted the payment of arrears of pay, gratuity, Provident Fund and all other benefits accrued to him on account of fixation of pay.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No, 2 2. In the reply, filed on behalf of respondent No.2, the following stand has been taken by way of preliminary submission and para 6 (vi) (b) on merits :- “This application is against the non fixation of the pay of the applicant as per his approved military service, whereas the pay fixation orders of the applicant were delayed because of his non- qualifying the patwar examination, which was a pre requisite condition. The applicant passed the patwar examination in the year 1997, but the patwar pass certificate was received in this office on 31.1.2000. Thereafter this case remain under correspondence with the Punjab Regiment Ramgarh Cantt. (Bihar) for lack of military record on receipt of the said record the pay fixation case of the applicant was sent to the Respondent No.1, issued the pay fixation orders on 5.6.2002 which was endorsed to the Respondent No.3 for necessary action, therefore, now this O.A become infructuous.” (b) That the delay in pay fixation is due to non- qualifying of Patwar examination. The applicant passed the patwar examination on Ist January, 1997 but failed to submit the complete record of passing the said examination despite repeated reminders. Which was at last obtained by the respondent No.2 from the Director Land Records on dated 31.1.2000 (Annexure R-111) alongwith English version “B” was called from the Punjab Regiment Ramgarh Cantt (Bihar) through proper channel and finally the pay fixation case was sent to the Respondent No.1 for approval vide letter No. Rev (CH) P (640)/87-8286 dated 3.11.2000 (Annexure R-IV) enclosed). The case remained 3 under correspondence with the respondent No.1 to 111 due to lack of record and complexity of matter. Now the pay fixation has been ordered by the Respondent No.1 vide letter dated 5.6.2002. Annexed at annexure R-1. Hence, no delay and harassment has been caused by the respondent.” 3. A rejoinder refuting the above stand and reiterating the averments set up in the petition has also been filed. 4. Some of the undisputed facts may be noticed first. The petitioner, an Ex-Serviceman, was appointed as Patwari on the establishment of the respondent-department on 5th December, 1979. Though, admittedly he was entitled for grant of benefit of approved military service in terms of the provisions of Demobilised Armed Forces (Reservation of vacancies) Rules, 1972, yet the same could not be extended to him as he had not qualified the Patwar Examination which was a pre-requisite for the post of Patwari. However, admittedly later on he passed that examination in the year 1997. But, his case for grant of benefit of approved military service was not considered by the respondents even thereafter, on the grounds that the requisite certificate evidencing that the petitioner had qualified the Patwar examination was received in the office only on 31.1.2000, whereafter the case remained under correspondence with the Punjab Regiment, Ramgarh Cantt. (Bihar) for verification of the status of the petitioner as an Ex- Army Personnel. However, both these contentions on the face 4 of it appear to be just a make believe story. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner had qualified the requisite Patwar examination in the year 1997 and was granted benefit of approved Military Service only on 5.6.1992 which, in fact, ought to have been granted to him as soon as he had passed the Patwar examination in the year 1997. 5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to respondent No.1/competent authority to give effect to the order dated 5.6.2002, Annexure R-1, whereby the pay of the petitioner was fixed by granting him the benefit of approved military service under the provisions of Demobilised Armed Forces (Reservation of Vacancies) Rules, 1972 on and w.e.f. 1.1.1997, the date of his qualifying the Patwar examination instead of 5.6.2002, the date on which Annexure R-1 was issued and fix his pay accordingly and to pay all the consequential benefits to him along with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum within three months from today, failing which higher interest at the rate of 9 % per annum shall be payable. Since the petitioner has already retired from service, retrial benefits, if not already paid, shall also be payable to him within the same time along with interest as above. 6. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 7th December, 2010 CS 5