IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.35 of 2002 Decided on : September 9, 2008 H.R.T.C. and others …Petitioners. Versus Milap Chand …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Pt. Om Prakash, Advocate. Per Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Petitioners, Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, are the employer of respondent Milap Chand. They have filed this writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality and validity of order dated 1st July, 1999, passed by the State Administrative Tribunal and seeking its judicial review. 2. Respondent Milap Chand, after serving in Indian Army from March 1964 to July 1979, joined the service of the writ petitioners as driver in the year 1982. He was appointed against an unreserved post. Thereafter, some other persons were appointed against vacancies reserved for ex-servicemen and those persons were given the benefit meant for ex- servicemen, as per rules and guidelines issued by the State Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Government and adopted by the writ petitioners-Corporation, from time to time. Respondent Milap Chand made a representation to the writ petitioners to treat him as appointee against one of the posts reserved for ex-servicemen and to give him benefit of military service. His representation was rejected. Then he filed an Original Application before the State Administrative Tribunal, which was registered as OA-(D)342/97. Learned Tribunal allowed that Original Application, vide order dated 1st July, 1999, and directed the writ petitioners to adjust the respondent as appointee against one of the posts reserved for ex-servicemen, which may arise in future. It is against this order of the Tribunal that the present writ petition is directed. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioners and gone through the record. 4. The only point that has been urged on behalf of the writ petitioners is that respondent’s representation was rejected in the year 1989, but he filed the Original Application before the Tribunal in the year 1997, or say eight years after the rejection of his representation and, therefore, the Original Application was barred by limitation. We do not find any merit in the submission, because when the matter was finally heard, the respondent gave up his claim for being accommodated/adjusted against any of the reserved vacancies filled in the past and prayed for being accommodated/adjusted against some future vacancy, so that the seniority of the persons already adjusted against the vacancies reserved for ex-servicemen was not disturbed. We may also notice that the respondent had a …3… continuing cause of action, because on account of his being treated as appointee against one of the points reserved for ex- servicemen, he would be entitled to some monetary benefits, including pensionery benefits, as the service rendered by him in Indian Army to some extent would be counted for pension purpose. Otherwise also, as per instructions issued by the State Government and adopted by the writ petitioners, respondent was required to be given an option to be treated as appointee against one of the reserved points, when the reserved vacancies became available. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. ( R.B. Misra ), J. September 9, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.