IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,

SHIMLA .

CWP No.19038/2025

Decided on: 04.12.2025

Surjeet Kumar ….Petitioner

Versus

Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh

Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur .…Respondent …………………………………………o…………………………………….

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewtal Dua

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath and

o Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocates.

For the Respondent: Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. Prince Chauhan, learned counsel,

appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the

respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner’s grievance concerns fixation of his pay in his present post after giving him benefit of entire approved military service. Respondent has declined to grant him the claimed benefits, under impugned order dated 27.08.2025 (Annexure P-4). The case set up by the petitioner is that: - He is an ex-

Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

servicemen, who had rendered 15 years of service in Indian Army w.e.f. 28.07.2003 to 31.07.2018. He was re-employed in civil employment and joined as Junior Office Assistant (IT) on 30.06.2022 on contract basis in the respondent-University. His services were regularized on 11.04.2025. The benefit of petitioner’s entire approved military service towards pay fixation was not given to him. Learned counsel further submitted that the said tissue of granting the benefit of approved military service by taking into consideration the entire approved military service has been adjudicated upon in Babu Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 and Ganesh Dutt Vs. State of H.P. & Anr.3. Relevant portion from Ganesh Dutt3, whi ch in turn is based upon Babu Ram2 is extracted hereinafter: -

“4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

Learned Additional Advocate General opposes grant of the benefit of approved military service to the petitioner towards fixation of pay in civil employment primarily on the ground that vide notification dated 29.01.2018, the Department of Personnel, Government of Himachal Pradesh had amended Rule 5(1) of Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal State Non- Technical Services) Rules, 1972. As per the amendment, ‘only the period of approved military service rendered after attaining the minimum age and qualification prescribed for appointment to the service concerned, by the candidate(s) appointed against reserved vacancy under the relevant rules,

2 CWP No.6443/2021 decided a/w connected matters on 09.05.2022

3 CWP No.5224/2021 decided on 25.04.2025

shall count towards fixation of pay in that service at the time of first civil appointment against reserved vacancy. This benefit shall not be admissible in subsequent appointment(s) of Ex Servicemen who are already employed under the State/Central Government against reserved post(s): Provided that such fixation of pay will be in accor.dance with the instructions issued by the Finance DHepartment from time to time’. Respondents’ stand is that the petitioner had obtained minimum qualification for the post of Junior Office Assistant (IT) in the year 2007, hence, benefit of approved military service cannot be granted to him.

The aforesaid amoendment was considered in Babu Ram’s2 case. The moot issue, which was determined in the said case was as to whether the benefit of approved military service for the purpose of pay fixation in terms of Rule 5(1) of 1972 Rules could be denied to the Ex-servicemen in terms of amendment carried out vide notification dated 29.01.2018, which uprovided that only the period of approved military service rendered after attaining minimum age and educational qualification prescribed for the service concerned by the candidate against reserved vacancy shall be counted towards fixation of pay in that service at the time of first civil employment against reserved vacancy. The Court held as under:-

“19. Now drawing strength from the afore