MITTER DEV Vs. H.R.T.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has in this original j application claimed the following reliefs: - A) that memo Annexure PA (whereby the representation of applicant to grant him the benefit of Army Service under the Rules was rejected) may be quashed. B) That the respondents may be directed to fix pay of the applicant after counting his army service, and C) That the respondents be directed to give all consequential benefits and retrial benefits to the applicants.

(2.) The relevant admitted facts of the case are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 7.2.1968 and was discharged on 28.2.1983. He was selected for appointment as a driver in HRTC through Employment Exchange in open competition against open quota and was kept on the penal which led to his appointment as driver on daily wages w.e.f.24.12.1984 and was appointed as such on regular basis w.e.f. 21.8.1936. While fixing his pay, his pay as in the Army was protected. Since his selection/appointment was not against a vacancy reserved for ex -servicemen, he was hot given the benefit of such service as permissible under the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel Rules 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules.) The applicant represented vide Annexure PB to claim the benefits of army service but such representation was dismissed vide Annexure PA. The applicant has since retired w.e.f. 31.7.2005.

(3.) The applicant claims that denial to him of benefit of army service as permissible under the Rules is violative of the instructions of the Govt. of India, therefore, is illegal. Hence, this original application.