IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 16141 of 2008 Decided on : 26.10.2010 Bal Krishan & Ors. ….. Petitioners. Vs. H.P.University …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr.Kush Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. B.C.Negi, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petition is filed with the following prayers:- (i) That the respondent may be directed to give the benefit for the approved military service rendered by the applicant in the army for the purpose of pay fixation and seniority as per the Himachal Pradesh Demobilized (Armed forces Personnel) (Reservation of vacancies in Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972, forthwith. (ii) Alternatively the respondent be directed to fix the pay of the applicants as per the executive order dated 02.08.1983 and 18.12.1991 of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Fixation of pay of re-employment Pensioners) orders 1988 forthwith. 2. In the reply filed by the respondent, it is stated as follows:- “6(4) It is admitted that the applicants represented to the University and their requests were rejected by the University vide this office letter No. 5-55/2000-HPU (Estt.) dated 30.11.2006 (Annexure A-I). In - 2 - this context, the replaying respondent has to state that clarification was sought from the Principal Secretary (Education) vide this Office letter No. 5-55/2000-HPU (Estt.).-4840 dated 09.06.06 (Annexure R-I) and the clarification was received in the University from Joint Secretary (Higher Education) to the govt. of Himachal Pradesh vide letter No. EDN-A-Kha(16)-23/94 dated 01.09.2006 (Annexure R-II). In view of this clarification, the representations of the applicants were rejected because they were neither appointed against the reserved post for Ex-serviceman nor any option had been received from them as already stated above. It is also to state that as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules, for Chowkidar at present a person should be literate, having knowledge of Hindi/English, preferably Ex- servicemen/Police-men/Para-military Services at the time of appointment (Annexure R-III). As such the rules have not been ignored as alleged by the applicants. The decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal passed in the case of Beli Ram Vs. State of H.P. and Sumit Kumar Vs. HRTC as quoted in the para by the applicants is not available.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the Government Instructions dated 2nd August, 1983 and 18.12.1999 in the matter of fixation, they are entitled to appropriate fixation. The petitioners may point out all these aspects before the Principal Secretary (Higher Education Department) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, within a period of two months from today along with a copy of the judgment, in which case, the matter will be duly considered by the said authority in light of the submissions made in the representations. In case any of the petitioners requests for an opportunity for hearing, the same shall also be granted. It will be open to the petitioners to take all available contentions in the representations before the Government. The needful orders, as above, shall - 3 - be passed by the Government within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the writ petition. Depending on the outcome of the orders passed by the Government, consequential steps if required shall be taken by the University and the benefits if any to which the petitioners are found eligible, shall also be disbursed within another two months. 4. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. October 26, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh), (GR/SKS) Judge.