Himachal Pradesh High Court
CIVIL APPEAL 8173 of 2008 on 31 May 1996
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP(T) No. 8173 of 2008.
Decided on 02.12.2010.
____________________________________________________
Roshan Lal.
…Petitioner. -Versus-
State of Himachal Pradesh and another.
…Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?[1]No.
__________________________________________________________
For the petitioner. : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral):
Petitioner joined the Indian Army as a Driver on 03.05.1963. He was discharged from Indian Army on 30.04.1980. He was appointed as Driver in the respondent-department, initially as contingent paid Driver and thereafter on regular basis w.e.f. 11.07.1985.
2. Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that though he is an Ex-serviceman, but he has not been given the benefit in pay fixation and seniority as per the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal State Non-technical Services) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules” for brevity sake).
3. Ms. Archana Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that her client is entitled to the benefit of approved Military service for seniority and pay fixation.
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.No.
4. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit of approved Military service, since he was not appointed against the post reserved for Ex-serviceman.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.
6. The name of the petitioner was sponsored by the employment exchange for the post of Driver reserved for S.C. candidates. Petitioner was never appointed against the post reserved for Ex-serviceman. In fact, the respondent-department has sought requisition for filling up of 4 posts, i.e., 1 post for Scheduled Cast, 1 for Scheduled Tribe and 2 for General Category in the year 1985. Since the petitioner has not been appointed against the post of Ex-serviceman, he is not entitled to the benefit of approved Military Service towards seniority and pay fixation. However, the respondent-department at its own level has refixed his salary on the basis of instructions issued by the State on 31.05.1996 at the minimum pay scale of `400/-. 2. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.
(Rajiv Sharma) Judge
December 02, 2010. (bhupender)