IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.228/2003 Decided on:25.6.2009 State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Petitioners. Versus Dr. K.K. Vaidya. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Bhalla, C.J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. For the petitioners : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the Respondent : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. This petition has been directed against the judgment passed by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. (M)35/96 decided on 8.10.2002. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent served in the India Army with effect from 10.4.1972 to 7.7.1977. He was appointed as a Dental Surgeon against the unreserved vacancy in the Health and Family Welfare Department on 30.7.1982. The Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972 were applicable 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 only to non-technical posts. The reservation was extended for the first time to all technical posts with effect from 3.5.1983. The respondent made representation for the grant of benefit of approved military service to him for the purpose of fixation of pay and seniority. The representation made by the petitioner was not decided. He approached the learned Tribunal by way of OA No. (M) 35/96. It was allowed by the learned Tribunal on 8.10.2002. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Advocate General has strenuously argued that since the petitioner was appointed before 3.5.1983, the respondent could not be granted the benefit of approved military services for the purpose of fixation of pay and seniority by the learned Tribunal vide judgment dated 8.10.2002. He has relied upon State of Himachal Pradesh and another versus Anjana Devi and others, (2009) 5 SCC 108. Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate has supported the judgment of the learned Tribunal dated 8.10.2002. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. The respondent was appointed as a Dental Surgeon from the general category on 30.7.1982. The benefits of reservation for the first time were extended to the technical post with from 3.5.1983. The Apex Court has upheld the validity of this cut off date 3.5.1983. Their Lordships State of Himachal Pradesh and another versus Anjana Devi and others, (2009) 5 SCC 108 have held that the persons appointed on or after 3.5.1983 and those appointed prior to 3.5.1983 are not of the same class and different yardsticks could be applied to them. Their Lordships have held as under: 3 ”17. As persons appointed or after 3.5.1983 and those appointed prior to 3.5.1983 are not of the same “class”, different yardsticks could be applied to them. The respondents could have complained of discrimination only if a benefit had been introduced retrospectively by fixing a cut-off date arbitrarily thereby dividing a single homogeneous class into two groups and subjecting them to different treatments. That is not the case here. Choice of the date 3.5.1983 for extension of benefit of option is not an arbitrary selection of a cut-off date. It is logical and rational, being the date on which reservation was made applicable to technical services. Thus ex- servicemen appointed to technical services were entitled to the benefits conferred by the 1985 Rules only if they were: (a) appointed to a reserved vacancy created under the 1985 Rules; or (b0 appointed to a non- reserved vacancy after reservation came into effect, that is, on or after 3.5.1983,but exercised the option to accept a reserved vacancy occurring subsequent to his vacancy”. Accordingly, in view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme, the judgment dated 8.10.2002 of the learned Tribunal in OA No. (M)35/96 is declared erroneous and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The judgment dated 8.10.2002 rendered in OA No. (M) 35/96 is set aside. O.A. No. (M) 35/96 is dismissed. No costs. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. 25.6. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*