PRATAP SINGH VERMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the service rendered by him as Instructor AEC Special in the Army should be taken into consideration while reckoning his service in the grade for purposes of promotion to the post of Principal. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is an ex -serviceman. He was recruited in the Indian Army on 6th November, 1980 as Instructor AEC Special (Education Instructor Special Group A). He was discharged from the Army in the year 1998. After discharge from the Army the petitioner joined as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) with the State of Himachal Pradesh as an ex -serviceman on 22.12.1999. The petitioner has been given the benefit of the service rendered by him in the Army for purposes of fixing his pay and seniority. On 17th June, 2005 the petitioner was promoted as Lecturer (Political Science) and in June, 2008 he was promoted as headmaster. The petitioner alleges that he has qualified the departmental exam which is prerequisite for the promotion to the post of Principal. He, however, submits that he has not been promoted to the post of Principal only on the ground that he does not fulfill the requisite qualification of having 15 years service in the grade. The petitioner alleges that his Army service has not been taken into consideration.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is based on the equation of Army service and civil trade issued by Directorate General of Employment & Training, Ministry of Labour, Government of India and notification dated 9th December, 1999 Annexure P -7 whereby the State of Himachal Pradesh itself has equated the post of Instructor AEC Special with that of TGT.

(3.) ONCE the post of Instructor AEC Special has been equated to that of TGTs, the State in my view cannot deny the benefit of the service rendered in the Army to the petitioner and on the ground that he has not actually worked as TGT. It may be clarified that this Court is not in any manner deciding that Army service of whatever nature rendered has to be taken into consideration for this purpose. In the present case the post which the petitioner held in the Army has been specifically equated with the post of TGTs and, therefore, in the facts of this case the service rendered by the petitioner in the Army must be taken into consideration while counting the service of the petitioner in the grade. The State Government having once accepted this equation cannot turn round and urge that this benefit cannot be given to the petitioner.