HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. : 33 of 1998. Decided on: 7.10.2009. H.P. State Electricity Board ……… Petitioner. Versus Harbans Singh ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Baldev Singh, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Surender Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral): This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 30th May, 1997, passed by H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.833 of 1996, whereby the present petitioner was directed to give the benefit of military service to the respondent. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the applicant/present respondent joined the Indian Army on 12.3.1962. He was released from the Army on 13.2.1978. Thereafter, he joined service as Lower Division Clerk in the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board on 10.6.1983 against the post reserved for ex serviceman. The applicant claimed that he should be granted the benefit of the service rendered by him in the Army for the purpose of ___________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - fixing his pay and seniority in view of the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972. The stand of the Board was that since the applicant had joined the Indian Army prior to the declaration of emergency, he could not be termed to be a demobilized armed forces personnel under the said Rules. The Tribunal, relying upon a judgment of the Full Bench of the Tribunal passed in Original Application No.1045 of 1991, held that the applicant could not be denied the benefit of Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel Rules. The only question which arises for consideration is whether a person who joined the armed services prior to declaration of emergency is covered under the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel Rules or not. This question is no longer res integra. This Court in V.K. Behal and others versus State of H.P. and others, 2009 Latest HLJ 402, has clearly held that the persons who joined the armed forces prior to the declaration of emergency are not entitled to the benefit of the said Rules. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the Original Application filed by the respondent shall be deemed to be dismissed. However, keeping in view the fact that legal position was not clear for a long time, we, while allowing the writ petition, direct that the Board shall not recover any amount from the employee paid to him pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal. - 3 - The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (V.K. Ahuja), October 7, 2009. Judge. (TILAK)