IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 4700 of 2008. Decided on: 5.6.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Sunder Ram … Petitioner. Versus H.R.T.C. and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. ______________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The petitioner was appointed in the Indian Army on 21.5.1957. He was discharged from the Army on 31.5.1976. The present petition has been filed by him for counting his approved military service of nineteen years towards the seniority and other monetary benefits. Since the petitioner has been appointed in the Indian Army before 1.11.1962, he is not entitled to the benefits as claimed for under the Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of vacancies in the Himachal State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. and another versus Piar Singh, 2002 (6) SLR 24 have held as under: “The contention of the present respondent before the tribunal was that fixing the cut off date on 1/11/1962, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 is a date from the hatch and must be arbitrary and irrational as there is no nexus between the fixing a date from which the rules can be said to have conferred the benefit to those who have joined army and, on being, demobilized have joined the civil service. It appears that once eight such employees, namely, Shri Kali Das and seven others had approached the tribunal even though they were pre 1/11/1962 recruits and the tribunal conferred them the benefit of the provision of the aforesaid rules. The government at that point of time did not pursue the matter further as it was thought that the benefit is being conferred only to eight persons. Subsequent to the judgment of the tribunal in Kali Das case these employees most of whom had already superannuated from services approached the tribunal seeking reliefs and the tribunal by the impugned judgment having come to a conclusion that the fixation of the date of 1/11/1962 to be arbitrary and irrational and having conferred the benefit to all these respondents, the state has come up in appeal. It is stated by the learned additional solicitor general that giving benefit to this group of employees would result in giving benefit to 1500 employees who had joined the army on their own much prior to 1.11.1962 and not that they had joined on or after 1.11.1962, when the country was in turmoil, and as an incentive for them, the present rules have been promulgated. According to the learned additional solicitor general, the tribunal committed serious error in holding that the fixation of the cut off date on1.11.1962 is arbitrary and irrational, inasmuch as on that date the country faced aggression from the neighbouring country of China and the country needed many personnel to join army and as a matter of incentive to them, the relevant rules have been framed, which has conferred to benefit, both of reservation as well as in the matter of fixation of their pay and seniority in the civil 3 services once they get demobilized and joined the civil services. In the teeth of the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, it is difficult for us to sustain the conclusion of the tribunal that fixation of 1.11.1962 as the date for conferring all the benefits of the rules for those who joined on or after that date is arbitrary. In our considered opinion the date 1.11.1962 has a direct bearing with the date on which the country faced the disturbances on account of war with China and by no stretch of imagination the said date can be said to be a date of hatch and therefore is arbitrary and irrational.” In view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Piar Singh’s case (supra), there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. June 5, 2009. (cr)