IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:2717/2008 Decided on: 19.3. 2009 Mukund Lal. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No For the petitioner : Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. B.N. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.4. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The petitioner was released from the Army and was selected by the Ex-servicemen Cell, Hamipur and posted as a Clerk in the office of the Deputy Director, Sainik Welfare, Chamba. He joined his duties on 30.12.1983. He was appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 400-600. This pay scale was revised to Rs. 950-1800 with effect from 1.1.1986. Respondent No.4 was discharged from the Army on 28.2.1985. He was offered re- employment and he joined his duties as a Clerk with effect from 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 20.3.1990. The respondent-department issued seniority list of Clerks. Respondent No.4 ranked above the petitioner. The precise case of the petitioner is that the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal State Non- Technical Services) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Demobilized Rules’ for brevity sake could not apply in the respondent- department. His further contention is that the seniority was to be regulated as per the rules reproduced in sub para (vii) of para 6 of the petition. The case of the State is that the Demoblized Rules have been applied on the basis of the judgment rendered by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 164/1988 decided on 9.6.1989. The learned Tribunal has held that Sainik Welfare Department is a Department specifically created to look-after the welfare of the Ex- servicemen and it would be highly anomalous if benefits which are admissible to Ex-servicemen on their appointment in other Departments of the State Government are denied to them even if they are appointed in the Sainik Welfare Department. In the present case, the petitioner was though appointed on 30.12.1983 he has been given the benefit of seven years approved military service. Respondent No.4 was appointed on 20.3.1990 but in his case benefit of 18 years approved military service has been given. The Demobilized Rules are required to be applied uniformly to all the Departments. In fact, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 164/88 is also to the same effect. The released Army personnel appointed in the respondent-department cannot be deprived of the benefits of the Demobilized Rules. In fact, the petitioner has also been granted this benefit by taking into consideration his 7 years approved 3 military service. It is not disputed by the parties that the judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 164/88 also pertains to the respondent-department. The direction therein was issued to give benefit to the petitioner on the basis of the Demobilized Rules. This judgment was not assailed in appeal. It has attained finality. In view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no force in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. 19.3.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*