IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 12474 of 2008 Decided on: 2nd December, 2011 B.D. Sharma ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanjay Karol,J. (Oral) Mr. Parneet Gupta, Advocate has vehemently argued in favour of petitioner who is seeking benefit of approved military service for the purpose of fixation of pay and seniority. The date on which petition was filed, perhaps petitioner was justified in making such a claim. But, however, as is now apparent from orders dated 28th November, 1994 (Annexure R-I) and 7th September, 2000 (Annexure R-II) such benefit is not permissible to persons who were employed prior to 1.5.1983 in technical services of the State. 2. Though petitioner relied upon judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh through Secy. (PW) and another versus Anjana Devi and others,2007(1) Cur. L.J. (H.P.) 201 but, however, position as on date has changed and the said decision stands reversed by the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and another versus Anjana Devi and others, (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 108, wherein it has been held as under: ”Discrimination presupposes classification of similarly situated persons into different groups without any 2 reasonable basis, for extending dissimilar benefits or treatment. Technical services and non-technical services are different categories. Persons appointed against reserved vacancies after reservation was provided, and persons appointed before introduction of reservation, belong to different classes. Persons appointed on or after 3.5.1983 and those appointed prior to 3.5.1983 are not of the same “class”, hence 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.” 3. Mr. Gupta has also vehemently argued that monetary benefits w.e.f. 1.5.1983 till the date of retirement be given to the petitioner. In view of the decision rendered by Apex Court in Anjana’s case(supra), such claim cannot be allowed as the same is not based on any rules and instructions. 4. Thus for the aforesaid reasons, present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit, so also the pending application (s), if any. December 2nd, 2011 (Sanjay Karol ), (jai) Judge.