NIKKU RAM Vs. H.R.T.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has filed the petition for quashing of Annexure A -9 dated 23.10.2001, vide which the benefit of ex -serviceman was not given to him. The Petitioner has also sought direction against the Respondents to treat the Petitioner to be appointed against the vacancy reserved for ex -servicemen from the date of initial appointment on 3.5.1990 and to grant him consequential benefits like seniority, pay fixation on the basis of Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal State Non -Technical Services) Rules, 1972 and the instructions issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh from time to time. It has also been prayed that the Respondents may be directed to assign seniority of the Petitioner in the cadre of drivers after counting his approved military service of 19 years and to grant him consequential benefits.

(2.) THE pleaded case of the Petitioner is that he joined the Indian Army on 16.12.1968 and was released from the Army on 29.4.1976. He served D.S.C. from 30.12.1977 to 31.12.1986. The State of Himachal Pradesh has framed Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal State Non -Technical Services) Rules, 1972 (for short the 'Rules '). Rule 5 provides the benefit of approved military service for the purposes of seniority and pay fixation of the candidates appointed against the reserved vacancies. The State of Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 23.5.1975 has granted benefit of Rules to the released army personnel appointed against a general un -reserved vacancy in the first instance provided he gives an option to accept a reserved vacancy even if it occurs subsequent to his appointment.

(3.) THE Petitioner has taken the pleas that the impugned Annexure A -9 dated 23.10.2001 is wrong, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Petitioner has approved military service of about 19 years and he is entitled to get the benefit of military service under the Rules in view of notification dated 23.5.1975. The Petitioner had already given his option as required in the notification dated 23.5.1975. The authorities have wrongly rejected the representations of the Petitioner. Assuming the Petitioner was appointed against the post reserved for Scheduled Caste even then the Petitioner was required to be given option which he has given and, therefore, was to be granted all the benefits of Rules. On these grounds the petition has been filed.