IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 10457/2008 Decided on:27.12.2010 _____________________________________________ Prem Singh Pathania. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondent No.1. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.3. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). CMP No. 1519/2008 Heard. Allowed. The legal representatives of the original petitioner (deceased), namely Bhanu Partap Singh, Smt. Shalini are permitted to be brought on record. The application is disposed of. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 CWP (T) No. 10457/2008 Case of the original petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he joined Indian Army on 6.10.965 and was discharged on compassionate grounds on 20.3.1968. He was appointed as Inspector in the respondent-corporation on 3.10.1972. He sought voluntary retirement from service on 30.9.1999 and the same was allowed on 8.10.1999. Further case of the petitioner is that the services rendered by him in the Indian Army with effect from 6.10.1965 to 20.3.1968 have not been counted by the respondent-corporation towards pensionary benefits. 2. Mr. M.C. Verma has strenuously argued that as per the Demobilized Armed Forces Personal (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal Pradesh State Non Technical Services) Rules, 1972, the services rendered by the petitioner with effect from 6.10.1965 to 20.3.1968, were required to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 3. Mr. Adarsh Sharma has vehemently argued that the petitioner had applied against the general post and had not brought to the notice of the Corporation that he was an ex-serviceman. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 3 5. Petitioner, as noticed above, worked in the Indian Army with effect from 6.10.1965 to 20.3.1968. A bare perusal of Annexure A-2 makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner has been appointed in the general category. Case of the respondent-corporation is that petitioner has never brought to the notice of the corporation that he was an ex- serviceman. He sought retirement from service on 8.10.1999 and the present petition has been filed after a lapse of five years. Thus, there is inordinate delay in approaching the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Petitioner ought to have brought to the notice of the respondent-corporation that he was an ex-serviceman and was entitled to benefits of the approved military service. 6. Mr. M.C. Verma has submitted that his client had made representation for the redressal of his grievance for counting of approved military service. This representation was also made on 1.7.2003, after four years of retirement. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent-corporation. 7. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 27.12.2010*awasthi*