Raj Kumar vs State of H.P.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.—The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming therein the following substantive relief:

"i) A writ, order and/or direction and a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents to grant the benefit of seniority and pay fixation in favour of the petitioner in terms of the Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of vacancies in Himachal State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972 and the instructions issued by the State Government thereunder."

The respondents have not disputed the status of the petitioner regarding his being an Ex-serviceman and the only defence is that since the petitioner had been recruited under the back log quota meant for handicapped person. Presently there is no vacant post for Ex-servicemen as per the roster point in District Una and his case can only be considered as and when such roster point is available in District Una. This would be clear from para-3 of the reply which reads as follows:

"3. That the petitioner would entitled to the benefit of approved military service from the date when the post reserved for Ex-servicemen becomes available as per roster point. It is submitted that those Ex-servicemen who are appointed through Ex-servicemen Cell against reserved posts are entitled for the pay fixation from the date of their appointment, whereas the Ex-serviceman like the petitioner is entitled for the same from the date when post reserved for Ex-servicemen becomes available as per roster point provide he opt the same because his appointment is under the back log quota meant for handicapped person. At present there is no vacant post for Ex-servicemen as per roster point in district Una. Hence, in view of these facts the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable at this stage. Therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed."

The petitioner has refuted these averments by claiming that the respondents have not placed on record the seniority list of Physical Education Teachers working in District Una and on the strength of the seniority list, Annexure P-10, has made the following averments in the rejoinder:

"12..............The said seniority list contains the names of 108 Physical Education Teachers, last entry is at Sr. No. 108 which shows that one Shri Vikas Dadwal, a person of general category, has been appointed on 14.9.2006. The said list is not upto date. A perusal of this list shows that the PET at Sr. No. 42 Sh. Dharam Pal, Sr. No. 56 Sh. Paramjit Singh, Sr. No. 69 Sh. Brijpal Singh, Sr. No. 86 Sh. Darshan Singh, Sr. No. 96 Sh. Chaman Lal, Sr. No. 97 Sh. Ranjit Singh (Total six persons) are shown to be ex-servicemen. The petitioner has also come to know that Shri Amarjit Singh and Shri Devinder Singh whose names fall at Sr. No. 53 and 54 are also ex-servicemen and were given the service benefits under the Rules ibid after the directions of this Hon''ble Court on their Civil Writ Petitions No. 2993 of 2011 and 2994 of 2011. As already stated no other seniority list has come to notice of the petitioner. Assuming but not admitting that there are in all 108 Physical Education Teachers in Una District, atleast 15 posts come to the share of ex-servicemen. Therefore, there are still seven (7) posts of the share of ex-servicemen which can be given to the ex-servicemen like the petitioner who are in the service of the respondent-department. The respondents may kindly be directed to admit or deny the existence of the aforesaid seniority list and they may be directed to place on record latest and upto date seniority list of Physical Education Teachers in the interest of justice."

The petitioner on the strength of the aforesaid seniority list has claimed that since there are seven (7) posts falling to the share of the ex-servicemen, which can be given to the ex-servicemen like the petitioner, the respondents may be directed to fill up these posts.

A perusal of the aforesaid averments would show that as per the claim of the petitioner, there are seven posts still lying vacant which fell to the share of the ex-servicemen. If that be so, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner against the aforesaid posts, strictly in accordance with Rules, within a period of three months.

The petition alongwith all pending application(s) if any, is disposed of accordingly.