M. JAYARAJU Vs. THE CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides. I think it worthwhile to dispose of the main writ petition itself.

(2.) Amareswari, J. - The petitioner is an Ex-serviceman. He served in the Army from 1971-1977. On 2.1.1980 he applied for the post of Combatant Stores Clerk pursuant to an advertisement made by the respondents. He was selected and appointed as Stores Clerk, Grade IV he grievance of the petitioner is that his pay has not been properly fixed. His case is that in the year 1963 the Government of India, Ministry of Finance issued a Memorandum dated 11.4.1963 to the effect that in the case of Combatant Clerks, their services may be treated as equivalent to the services of L.D.Cs./Junior Clerks in Civil Departments irrespective of their pay drawn in the Armed Forces and when such persons are absorbed in the posts of L.D.Cs./Junior Clerks in Civil Departments after their release/retirement from the Armed Forces, their initial pay in the posts of L.D.Cs./Junior Clerks may be fixed at higher stage in the scale above the minimum equal to the number of completed yers of service as Combatant Clerks. These instructions were made applicable to Ex-Combatant Storesmen re-employed as Storeman in Civil posts in Office Memorandum dated 19.3.1968. The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondent to give the benefits to him contemplated by the Office Memo dated 19.3.1968 since he had been re-employed as Storeman.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner served in the Arm from 1971 to 1977 and these instructions are applicable to him. But the respondents resist his claim on the ground that he is not released by the Department of Military Services at their own but heft is released on his application on compassionate grounds. It is also contended that the instructions issued in the Office Memorandum dated 31.5.1983 extending the benefits to persons released on compassionate grounds do not apply to the petitioner as those instructions have only prospective operation and not retrospective operation and since the petitioner was appointed in 1980 his case is not governed by the instructions issued in the Office Memorandum dated 31.5.1983.