IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2154 of 2008. Decided on: 2.4.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Sher Singh … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army. He was appointed as Election Clerk vide letter dated 29.5.1976 in the pay scale of Rs. 110-250. He joined his duties on 31.5.1976. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 25.2.1978. However, he was adjusted and appointed in the Deputy Commissioner’s office on 4.7.1978. He made various representations to the authorities that since he had been appointed against the post of ex-serviceman, his pay and seniority be fixed after taking into account approved military service as per Rule 5 of the Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in Non- Technical Service in Himachal Pradesh State) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The representation made by the petitioner was turned down on 15.6.1987. However, pre-interruption service of the petitioner i.e. 31.5.1976 to 28.2.1978 was treated as qualifying service vide letter dated 4.1.1989. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 It is not disputed by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General that the petitioner in fact was appointed as Clerk on 31.5.1976 in the Election Department against the post reserved for ex- serviceman. He was entitled to the pay fixation and seniority under Rule 5 of the Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in Non-Technical Service in Himachal Pradesh State) Rules, 1972. The representation made by the petitioner has been rejected on 15.6.1987 on wrong premise. The petitioner was appointed against the vacancy reserved for ex-serviceman on 31.5.1976. His approved military service was required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority and pay fixation as per Rule 5 of the Rules. In the present case, the petitioner has not been granted these benefits only on the ground that the petitioner had sought second civil employment in the year 1978. However, fact of the matter is that the petitioner was entitled to get the benefit under the Rules on his first civil employment in the year 1976. The petitioner cannot be deprived of the right to get his due seniority and pay fixation by wrongly construing the provisions of the rules. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure R-2 dated 15.6.1987 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to give the petitioner benefit of Rule 5 of the Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in Non-Technical Service in Himachal Pradesh State) Rules, 1972 towards the seniority and pay fixation for the period with effect from 31.5.1976 to 28.2.1978 for all intents and purposes. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. April 2, 2009. (cr)