IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P.(T)No. 11600/08 Date of decision:5-4-2011 ------------------------------------------------- Mangat Ram Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting1?No. For the petitioners: Mr.G.R Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Thakur,Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy AG. Per Deepak Gupta.J.(Oral): The only question which arises in this petition is whether the army service rendered by the petitioner is to be taken into consideration for grant of proficiency step-up increment. 2. The petitioner was enrolled in Indian army from 27.3.1981. He was discharged on 15-11-1990 after putting in 9 years 7 months and 18 days of service. After discharge from the army, he was appointed as JBT Teacher on 14-12-1994. The petitioner was given the benefit of the service rendered in the Indian Army for fixation of his pay in terms of the relevant rules and was treated to be in service w.e.f 30.11.1985. The petitioner therefore, claims that he should be granted proficiency step-up on completion of 8 years of service. 3. The stand of the State is that as far as proficiency step up is concerned, it was granted to petitioner after taking his Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes. actual service rendered as JBT Teacher w.e.f 22-12-1994 and he has been granted the benefit of said step up w.e.f 22.12.2002, the date on which he had completed 8 years of service. 3. The plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted that his army service shall also be counted for this benefit. If this plea is accepted the result would be that the petitioner would earn proficiency step up even before he started serving as JBT Teacher. The petitioner may be entitled to the benefit of Army service for fixation of his pay but this benefit cannot be extended to the grant of proficiency step up or other benefits which are directly related to actual service rendered in the post in question. 4. As far as the second prayer of petitioner is concerned, there is no material to show that the petitioner is entitled for the aforesaid relief. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is dismissed. No costs. (Deepak Gupta),J. 5th April, 2011. (priti)