IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP-T No.2157 of 2008. Date of decision: 22.2.2011 Sansar Chand Rana …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & ors. .... Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the respondents: Sh.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) The main grievance of the petitioner is that his past army service should be counted for the purpose of pay fixation in civil appointment. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner is an ex-serviceman. He joined the Indian Army on 7.12.1976 and was discharged on 31.12.1992. During the period of service in the army, he attained the qualifications necessary for being appointed as Physical Education Teacher. 2 After the petitioner was discharged from the Indian Army, the respondents-State invited applications for filling up the posts of Physical Education Teacher in various schools. The name of the petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Kullu and thereafter, he was called for interview in the year 1998 and on 21.10.1998, the petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher in GMS, Dhara-serni, Jallugran. In the remarks and sessions column, “General Ex- Serviceman 1981” is entered. The petitioner thereafter represented that he is an ex-serviceman and his past army service should be taken into consideration for the purpose of pay fixation. This representation was replied to by the Deputy Director (Education), Kullu and the petitioner was informed that he should get his name sponsored through the Chairman, Ex-Servicemen Cell, Hamirpur and thereafter, necessary action could be taken. The other representation of the petitioner met with the same fate. The Demobilized Army Personnel Concession Rules provides that when a released Army Personnel 3 is appointed against a vacancy reserved for ex- serviceman, his pay has to be fixed after giving him benefit of the service rendered in the armed forces. In case he is appointed against a non-reserved vacancy then at the first instance when a vacancy reserved for ex-servicemen occurs, he has to be given such benefit. Therefore, the Rules virtually lay down that every ex-serviceman who is appointed would be given the benefit of the Rules. It may happen that if a person is appointed against a post not reserved for ex-servicemen, he will get the benefit only when the next vacancy for ex- servicemen occurs. The right of the State to file reply was closed by the Tribunal on 14th May, 2007 since despite various opportunities, no reply was filed. Even till today, no application has been moved for recalling such order by the State. The only reply on record was filed by the Director, Sainik Welfare (Ex- Servicemen Employment Cell, Hamirpur. Now it is argued that the petitioner was not appointed against a post reserved for ex-serviceman on the 4 ground that such seats were to be notified to the Ex- servicemen Employment Cell, Hamirpur. In my view, merely because the seat was not notified to the Ex-servicemen Cell will not make it a ground to hold that the petitioner was not appointed against a vacancy meant for ex- serviceman. The appointment order dated 21.10.1998 shows that the petitioner is an ex- serviceman. It has been argued that since the word ‘General’ is used, it means that he has been appointed against a general category post. I find that on the next page of the same order, at Sr.No.14, one Sh.Ranjeet Singh has been appointed against a post reserved for ex-serviceman. Therefore, even as per the Rules, the petitioner had to be given an option of being appointed against the said post. As such, whatever may be the position, the petitioner would be entitled to count his past army service for fixation of pay. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioner on or before 30th June, 2011 after giving him the benefit of the entire army 5 service rendered by him. The arrears due and payable to him on this account shall be paid to him latest by 31st August, 2011 failing which the respondents shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. February 22, 2011 (m) ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge 6