JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—-Both these writ petitions (CWP No. 1867 of 1995 and CWP No.710 of 1998) may be dealt with together by this common order since learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as for the respondents have made their submissions in common and reliefs sought for by the petitioners are identical. CWP No.1867 of 1995 has been jointly filed by 11 petitioners and CWP No.710 of 1998 by two petitioners against Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of power Government of India (respondent No.l), State of H.P through the Secretary, MPP and Power to the Government of H.P. (respondent No.2) and Nathpa, Jhakari Power Corporation Limited (for short NJPC) through its Chair-man-cum-Managing Director (respondent No.3). By way of these petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:— (i) that the petitioners be held entitled to the benefits of pay fixation and seniority under the respondent- NJPC at par with the employees of other Corporations like Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board with all consequential benefits thereof; (ii) that the respondent-NJPC be directed to release to the petitioners the benefits of military service under the Demoblized Armed, Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies) Rules, 1972 of H.P. State adopting the same, if not already adopted by the respondent-NJPC or under any other rules of the Centre Government as may be applicable to their cases along with consequential benefits thereof; (iii) that the non-payment of Hill Compensatory Allowance to the petitioners be kindly held arbitrary and the respondents be directed to pay to the petitioners Hill Compensatory Allowance at par with the Seconded H.P. State Electricity Board employees working under respondent-NJPC along with all consequential benefits thereof; (iv) that the respondent-NJPC be directed to confer Supervisory status on the petitioners 1 to 10 who are working as Wireless-cum-Telephone Operators in the respondent-NJPC instead of the status of workmen as has been conferred on them; and (v) that the respondents may be directed to produce the entire record for the perusal of the Court, costs of the writ petition and any other order which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case by the Court. 2. 2. Petitioners undisputedly are Ex-servicemen and after having retired from the Indian Army, they got their names enrolled with the Employment Exchanges in Himachal Pradesh as well as H.P. Sainik Welfare Board (Ex-servicemen Cell) for the purpose of obtaining civil employment. NJPC is a joint venture of the Government of India and Government of Himachal Pradesh. The respondent-NJPC has invited sponsorship- of the eligible persons for appointments to the post of Wireless-cum-Telephone Operators and Staff Nurses from the Employment Exchanges in H.P. including Sainik Welfare Board, Hamirpur. The names of first ten petitioners were sponsored by the H.P. Sainik Welfare Board (Ex-servicemen Ceil) to the respondent-NJPC to consider them for appointments to the posts of Wireless-cum-Telephone Operators. On the basis of sponsorship, the petitioners were invited by NJPC to attend trade test/interview being held by the NJPC Selection Board on 9.8.1993 to the posts of Wireless-cum-Telephone Operators in the pay scale of Rs. 1150-1730 (IDA). The first ten petitioners in CWP No.1867/95 and both the petitioners in CWP No.710/98 were selected for appointment by the respondent-NJPC and they were issued appointment orders on the basis of which all of them joined the service of the respondent-NJPC as Wireless-cum-Telephone Operators in the said pay scales. 3. The name of Budhi Singh petitioner No.11 was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Rekong Peo for the post of Staff Nurse. He also qualified the trade test and interview held on 15.9.1993 and subsequently, he was also offered the appointment to the post of Staff Nurse in the pay scale of Rs. 1175-1825 (IDA) with basic pay of Rs. 1,175/-. The petitioners averred that after successfully completing the probation period, they were confirmed in the posts by the respondent-NJPC. The petitioners contended that they were re-employed in the respondent NJPC against the vacancies reserved for ex-servicemen and, therefore, they are entitled to all the benefits of ex-servicemen under the rules framed by the State Government known as Demoblized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies) Rules, 1972 (for short 1972 Rules) and the said rules have been made applicable by the State of Himachal Pradesh to all the Public Undertakings/Corporations/Autonomous Bodies of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioners have also stated that they had enrolled themselves with the Ex- servicemen Cell of the Directorate of Sainik Welfare Board, Hamirpur with sole object to get benefits under 1972 Rules on their re-employment in civil services and that under Rule 5 of 1972 Rules, service rendered in the Armed Forces shall have to be counted in full towards seniority and fixation of pay under State Government in the post to which the Ex-serviceman is appointed against the vacancies reserved under Rule 3 thereof. Petitioners also alleged that on being sponsored by the Ex-servicemen Cell for appointment in civil service of respondent-NJPC, they joined their services in the respective posts with the legitimate expectation that the respondent- NJPC being a joint venture of the Central Government and the State Government, they will draw benefits of 1972 Rules, but the respondent- NJPC has denied them these benefits whereas staff recruited by the respondent- NJPC on Secondment from the H.P. State Electricity Board (HPSEB) are availing the benefits of pay fixation and seniority as Ex-servicemen under the State Rules. Petitioners also stated that respondent-NJPC is paying Hill Compensatory Allowance of Rs. 375/ - per month in the District of Kinnaur and Rs. 200/per month in the District of Shimla to the Seconded staff recruited from the H.P.S.E.B., whereas the employees of the respondent-NJPC like the petitioners are being deprived of the said benefit despite the fact that these employees are also working on high altitude in the District of Kinnaur and Shimla along with Seconded staff of HPSEB. The petitioners also stated that they have been treated arbitrarily by the respondent-NJPC on their re-employment by declaring their status as workmen whereas other persons appointed in other categories who have got Diplomas have been classified in the Supervisory and Executive categories despite the admitted fact that first ten petitioners have been appointed as Wireless-cum-Telephone Operators who are having Diplomas from the Indian Army and thus their qualification is in no way inferior to the Diplomas obtained by the other employees and in such circumstances, the petitioners cannot be termed as workmen but should have been classified as holding supervisory posts. The petitioners have further stated that they have been representing their grievances to the various authorities of the respondent-NJPC but have remained unsuccessful. On these premises, the present writ petitions have been filed seeking the above stated reliefs. 4. The petitioners have further stated that they have been representing their grievances to the various authorities of the respondent-NJPC but have remained unsuccessful. On these premises, the present writ petitions have been filed seeking the above stated reliefs. 4. First respondent-Union of India has adopted the reply filed by respondent- NJPC in CWP No. 1867/95 and no separate reply has been filed by it nor any reply has been filed by respondent-State. In opposition to the grant of reliefs sought for by the petitioners written statement has been filed by the respondent-NJPC supported by an affidavit of Sh. J.K. Gautam, Supervisor (Law) of NJPC Limited Jhakri, District Shimla. No separate reply has been filed in CWP No. 71098 by respondent-NJPC and on March 6, 2000 the learned counsel appearing for respondent-NJPC stated that he may be permitted to adopt the reply filed in CWP No.1867/ 95, in respect of law points including the applicability of the Rules and permission was granted by the Court. In its reply, respondent-NJPC has raised following three preliminary objections :— "(i) that the writ petition is not maintainable against the NJPC in as much as the reliefs sought for by the petitioners are not covered under the rules and regulations of NJPC; (ii) that the present writ petition is not maintainable keeping in view the fact that the provisions of Demoblized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies) Rules, 1972 are not applicable to the NJPC; and (iii) that the writ petition is also liable to be rejected on the ground that no cause of action has accrued to the petitioners in as much as it was made clear by the NJPC at the time of joining of the petitioners that they are not entitled for the benefits in terms of pay fixation and seniority and the petitioners have accepted the terms of appointment as contained in their respective appointment letters." 5. On merits, it has been categorically denied that the posts of Wireless-cum-Telephone operators against which petitioners were appointed, were exclusively reserved for the categories of Ex-servicemen. It has been specifically stated that these posts were of general category and were not reserved exclusively for Ex-servicemen as stated by the petitioners. On merits, it has been categorically denied that the posts of Wireless-cum-Telephone operators against which petitioners were appointed, were exclusively reserved for the categories of Ex-servicemen. It has been specifically stated that these posts were of general category and were not reserved exclusively for Ex-servicemen as stated by the petitioners. It has been admitted that the requisition for sponsoring the eligible candidates were sent to Employment Exchanges of the State as well as Sainik Board and pay scales of the posts were notified in the said requisitions and therefore, in the face of specific mention of pay scales, the petitioners cannot make grievance at this belated stage that they are also entitled for the benefits of services rendered by them while they were in the Indian Army. It has been admitted that the petitioners except petitioner No.11 in CWP No.1867/95 were employed as Wireless-cum-Telephone operators in the pay scale of Rs.1155-1730. It is also stated that the candidature of petitioner No.11 was sponsored by Employment Exchange, Rekong Peo for the post of Staff- Nurse and the said post was not exclusively reserved for the Ex-servicemen as alleged by the said petitioner nor petitioner No.11 was ever selected against the reserved post of Ex-servicemen. It has been categorically stated that 1972 Rules of the State Government on which reliance has been placed heavily by the petitioners have not been adopted by the respondent- NJPC and the Corporation has taken into account the pensionary benefits being drawn by the petitioners as Ex- servicemen and, thereafter their pay scale has been fixed as per the rules and regulations of the Central Government Services (Fixation of Pay of re-employed Pensioner) Order, 1986. It is also stated that the requisition of sponsoring the names of eligible candidates to the posts has been sent to the various Employment Exchanges of the State Government as well as Director, Sainik Welfare Board but sponsoring of the names of the petitioners by Employment Exchanges and Sainik Welfare Board would not mean that the posts were exclusively reserved for Ex-servicemen and the petitioners would be entitled for all the benefits of that category. The respondent-NJPC is a Central Public Sector Undertaking under the Ministry of Power to the Government of India, the rules framed by the State Government are neither applicable nor they have been adopted by the Corporation and the rules of the Central Government regarding pay fixation would apply in respect of the service of the petitioners and not the rules framed by the State of H.P. as the petitioners have not been employed in the civil services of the State Government or their undertakings. It is the case of the respondent- NJPC that the Corporation is paying Hill Compensatory Allowance to its employees as per the rules framed by it and the petitioners being the employees of the respondent-NJPC cannot compare the allowances being given by the State Government to its employees. As per the job specifications applicable to different categories of employees of the respondent-NJPC, the Wireless-cum-Tel-ephone operators fall under the category of workmen and this job specification is in existence with other Public Sector Undertakings under Ministry of Power to the Government of India. The respondent- NJFC in its written statement has stated that in its Corporation the level in the workmen category starts from W-l to W-11 and keeping in view the qualifications and experience, the petitioners have been accordingly placed in W-4 and W-5 level and, therefore, the petitioners are not at all entitled for their placement under the categories of Supervisor as well Executive. It is also stated that the claims of the petitioners was duly considered and rejected by the Competent Authority of the Corporation and the decision was communicated to the petitioners. 6. In their rejoinder to the reply of the respondent-NJPC, the petitioners have reiterated and reasserted their averments made in the writ petition. They have also stated that the respondent-NJPC being a joint venture of Union of India and State of H.P., is under obligation to apply the rules relating to Ex-servicemen which are prevailing in the State Government because they were recruited through the agency of Ex-servicemen Cell by the respondent-NJPC and that their pay was fixed in the minimum basic pay pending fixation of pay and allowances as applicable to re-employed Ex-servicemen. In its reply to the rejoinder, the respondent-NJPC denied the averments of the petitioners that they were ever promised that their salaries will be fixed on the basis of past service rendered by them. In its reply to the rejoinder, the respondent-NJPC denied the averments of the petitioners that they were ever promised that their salaries will be fixed on the basis of past service rendered by them. It is further stated that while sending the requisitions to the Ex-servicemen Cell, Hamirpur, it was made clear that the vacancies existing in the respondent-NJPC were in a particular scale and accordingly the scales mentioned in the requisition letters were applicable at the time when the requisitions for sponsorship was sent. 7. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. Mr. O.R Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that since the petitioners were selected and appointed against the posts of Wireless-cum-Telephone Operators and Staff Nurse after getting their names sponsored through the Ex-servicemen Cell of the Sainik Welfare Board, Hamirpur and other Employment Exchanges the respondent-NJPC is not right in saying that the posts against which the petitioners were appointed were never reserved for the Ex-servicemen. 8. In order to appreciate this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners we have perused the material placed on record by the parties. From the perusal of requisition letter dated 2.7.1993 marked Annexure-R3/A, issued by the Manager ( Personnel) of respondent-NJPC to the Director, Sainik Welfare Board (Ex-servicemen Cell), Hamirpur, requesting the later to sponsor the names of eligible person for the posts of Wireless- cum-Telephone Operators in Grade-W-4, we have noticed that the pay scale of the posts were notified Rs.1155-1330-40-1730 (IDA) in the column No.4 of the letters and the age limit has been prescribed 45 years which was relaxable in the case of SC/ST candidates. Similar requisitions were also sent to other Employment Exchanges. The number of posts shown in the requisition form attached with the said Annexure were 10 (likely to be increased). In response to the requisition of the respondent-NJPC, the Director, Zila Sainik Welfare Board, Hamirpur, sent the names of 26 Ex-servicemen against the posts of Wireless-cum- Telephone Operators and all the 26 candidates were called for interview by respondent-NJPC. Some of the candidates were sponsored by other Employment Exchanges of the State. In response to the requisition of the respondent-NJPC, the Director, Zila Sainik Welfare Board, Hamirpur, sent the names of 26 Ex-servicemen against the posts of Wireless-cum- Telephone Operators and all the 26 candidates were called for interview by respondent-NJPC. Some of the candidates were sponsored by other Employment Exchanges of the State. The selection committee of the respondent-NJPC held its meeting on 9.8.1993 and selected petitioners No. 1 & 2 (in CWP No.1867/95) in the Scheduled Caste category whereas petitioners 3 to 10 were selected in the General Category to the post of Wireless-cum- Telephone Operators whereas petitioner No. 11 was selected against the post of Staff Nurse. After the selection of these petitioners, two more petitioners (in CWP No.710/98) were also interviewed and selected to the post of Wireless-cum-Telephone Operators. On selection of all the petitioners, appointment orders were issued t© them. The terms and conditions of the appointments including the pay scales and level of the post are found stipulated in the documents Annexure P-l to P-7 in respect of some of the petitioners. The pay scale of the Wireless-cum-Telephone Operators (W-4) has been specified Rs. 1155-35-1330-40-1730 (IDA) and the basic pay has been fixed at Rs.1,155/- per month. The pay scale of petitioner No. 11 who was appointed to the post of Staff Nurse (W-5) has been fixed Rs. 1175-40-1375-45-1885 (IDA) and the basic pay was fixed at Rs. 1,155/-. From the perusal of the requisition letters sent to the Director, Sainik Welfare Board (Ex-servicemen Cell), Hamirpur, and other Employment Exchanges of the Districts, we find that there was no such stipulation contained in all these communications that the posts for which the names of the eligible candidates were requested to be sponsored were exclusively reserved for Ex-servicemen category. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that calling the names of the eligible persons from the Director, Sainik Welfare Board, Hamirpur, would prove that the posts were reserved for Ex-servicemen category and, thereafter, the petitioners were appointed against those posts and thus are entitled to fixation of their pay and seniority after taking into consideration their past service rendered in the Army, appears to us misplaced and untenable. In its reply supported by an affidavit, the respondents-NJPC, has categorically stated that the posts for which the petitioners were interviewed and lateron appointed were of General Category not exclusively reserved for Ex-servicemen and the names of the eligible persons were called from the Director, Sainik Welfare Board in routine process along with sponsorship of the names by other Employment Exchanges, respondent-NJPC has adopted the practice of sending the requisition to all the Employment Exchanges of the State including Director of Sainik Welfare Board (Ex-servicemen Cell), Hamirpur requesting all the employment exchanges to sponsor the names of eligible persons for the posts likely to be filled up by the respondent-NJPC. In his communication dated 4.7.1994, marked Annexure P- 11 to the writ petition, the Officer on Special Duty of the Director, Sainik Welfare Board ( Ex-servicemen Cell), Hamirpur addressed to Wireless-cum-Operators of the respondent-NJPC, it has been stated that pay fixation and counting of Army Services cases of Ex- servicemen are to be decided by the Head of the Department in which they have been appointed against the reserved vacancies and the office of the Director, Sainik Welfare Board will only extend help to the Ex-servicemen in providing the civil employment. For the posts of Staff Nurse, in the requisition form attached with the document marked Annexure- R3/A only four posts were to be filled-in and out of those posts two were in General Category, one post for Scheduled Caste and one for Scheduled Tribe, candidates. The age limit was relaxable by 5 years in case of SC/ST candidates. The petitioners have relied upon the appointment order dated 26.8.1994 issued by the Personnel Officer of the respondent-NJPC to one of the petitioners, namely, Kamal Dev Kamal (in CWP No.710 of 1998) whereunder in para-18 of the terms and conditions, it has been stated that the said petitioner had been offered the minimum basic pay in the pay scale of Rs.1155-35-1330-40-1730 (IDA) pending fixation of his basic pay and other allowances as applicable to re-employed Ex-servicemen. In addition to this document, petitioners (in CWP No.710/98) have placed reliance upon inter departmental communications, copies of which are placed on record and marked Annexure P- 1/D to P-2/G. We have examined these interdepartmental communications exchanged between the Manager (Personnel) of respondent-NJPC, Section Officer, P&A, Department NJPC, Senior Protocol & Liaison Officer, P&A, Department NJPC, Solan, Deputy Manager P&A, NJPC and Manager (Personnel), Shimla. Through these communications the subordinate officers of the respondent-NJPC were requesting the higher authorities to consider the claims of the petitioners and settle the same in the light of rules and regulations in vogue governing the service conditions of re-employed employees in the NJPC because the petitioners were repeatedly representing for benefits of fixation of their pay and seniority. The higher authorities of the respondent-NJPC have considered the claims of the petitioners for the fixation of their pay and seniority and taken the decision that as the petitioners were not appointed against the posts reserved for Ex-servicemen and were appointed against the posts of General Category and therefore, their past services for fixation of pay and seniority could not be counted. As already noted by us, we find from the record that the petitioners were never appointed against the reserved posts of Ex-servicemen and there is no cogent material placed on record which would entitle the petitioners to claim their service benefit of fixation of pay and seniority in the posts reserved for Ex-servicemen. The inter-departmental communications as well as para 18 incorporated in the terms and conditions on which much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not indicate that the petitioners were selected and appointed against the posts reserved for Ex-servicemen nor they remotely envisage that the posts were reserved for such category. On the contrary, the requisition letters sent to the Director, Sainik Welfare Board, Hamirpur, and other Employment Exchanges and selection and appointments of the petitioners would confirm the stand of respondent-NJPC that the posts against which the petitioners were appointed were not exclusively meant for the Ex-servicemen but for General Category candidates and some of the posts were reserved for ST/SC categories. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, on this point that the petitioners were appointed against the reserved vacancies of Ex-servicemen, is wholly misconceived. 9. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the petitioners were governed by Demoblized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies) Rules, 1972, and the benefits of the Ex-servicemen (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal Pradesh Technical Services) Rules, 1985 have been extended by the State of H.P., to its employees and the employees of Public Sector Undertakings/Corporations/Boards etc. in the State of H.P. and since the respondent-NJPC is a joint venture of the Government of India and Government of H.P, the said rules of the State of H.P. are uniformly applicable to them, is in our considered view again misplaced and misconceived. 10. Rule 5 of Demoblized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies) in Himachal State Non-Technical Services) Rules,1972 (for short Rules 1972), was substituted as under vide notification No.ll-76/71-GA-A (Vol-II) dated 4.3.1974/6.12.1980 (Appendix-18- III) "seniority and pay of the candidates who are appointed against the vacancies reserved under Rule 3 shall be determined on the assumption that they joined the service or the post, as the case may be under the State Government at the first opportunity they had after they joined the Military service or training prior to the Commission". Rule 3 of Rules 1972 prescribes for reservation of 15% vacancies for released Indian Armed forces Personnel or Ex- servicemen who joined service or Were commissioned on or after the 1st day of November, 1962 and are released any time thereafter. 11. The State Government formulated Rules 1972 and Ex-servicemen (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal Pradesh Technical Services) Rules,1985 | (for short Rules, 1985) under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and these rules came into force on 28.3.1972 and 3.5.1983, respectively. Para 18.1.2 of Chapter-18 of Hand Book on Personnel Matters Vol-I (Second Edition) of Government of H.P. Department of Personnel deals with Scope of the Rules. Under para 18.1.2(iv) of Chapter -18, the rules provide for recognition of the Demoblized Armed Forces Personnel in the Armed Forces for the purpose of Seniority and pay. Government of H.P. Department of Personnel (A-II) had addressed letter No. PER.(AP-II).A(3)-11/82 dated 3rd May, 1983 to all the Secretaries, Head of the Departments etc., on the subject "Reservation for Ex-servicemen Reservation of vacancies in H.P. in Technical as well as non-Technical posts/services" whereunder the State Government have reserved 15% vacancies for Ex-servicemen in all posts/services (Technical as well as non-Technical) to be filled in by direct recruitments and these instructions were made applicable to all Public Sector Undertakings/Corporations/Autonomous Bodies of the State. The basic and sole question for our consideration is whether the Rules, 1972 and Rules, 1985 as well as the instructions noticed above, issued by the State Government will apply to the respondent-NJPC or not. The basic and sole question for our consideration is whether the Rules, 1972 and Rules, 1985 as well as the instructions noticed above, issued by the State Government will apply to the respondent-NJPC or not. The respondent-NJPC undisputedly is a joint venture of Government of India and Government of H.P. but it is an independent body constituted by the Government of India and the share of the State of H.P. in the execution of the project is very small whereas as per the statement made by the respondent-NJPC in its written statement, the respondent-NJPC is a Central Public Sector Undertaking under the Ministry of Power to the Government of India, the rules and instructions of the State Government reserving vacancies for Ex-servicemen will not ipso facto apply to the employees of the respondent-NJPC, unless such rules or instructions are specifically adopted by the respondent-NJPC. As per the job specifications applicable to different categories of employees of respondent-NJPC, the Wireless-cum-Telephone operators fall under the category of workmen and this job specification is in existence with other Public Sector Undertakings under the Ministry of Power to the Government of India. The level in the workmen category starts from W-l to W-11 in the respondent-NJPC and keeping in view the qualifications and experience, the petitioners have been accordingly placed in W-4 and W-5 level. The respondent-NJPC in its written statement has categorically stated that the petitioners are governed by the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986. These orders came into force on 1.7.1986. The provisions of these orders have been made applicable to all the persons in respect of the initial fixation of pay and other benefits of re-employed Ex-servicemen pensioners as also civilian pensioners who are re-employed in Civil Services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union Government including Public Sector Undertakings, Local Bodies, Autonomous Bodies like Universities Or Semi Government Organizations like Port Trust. Clause 4 of the Orders, 1986 deals with fixation of pay of re-employed pensioners. Sub-clause (a) prescribes that re-employed pensioners shall be allowed to draw pay only in the prescribed scales of pay for the posts in which they are re-employed. No protection of the scales of pay of the post held by them prior to retirement shall be given. 12. Sub-clause (a) prescribes that re-employed pensioners shall be allowed to draw pay only in the prescribed scales of pay for the posts in which they are re-employed. No protection of the scales of pay of the post held by them prior to retirement shall be given. 12. All the petitioners were appointed in the pay scales referred to hereinabove and they have accepted their appointments in the said pay scales. In the teeth of the application of orders of Union of India, to the petitioners and other similar placed employees of the respondent-NJPC, the petitioners cannot be permitted to contend that respondent-NJPC should apply and adopt the Rules, 1972 and Rules, 1985 as well as instructions of the State Government governing the services of the petitioners. The respondent-NJPC is not a Public Sector Undertakings of the State Government nor it is owned and controlled by the State and it is a Public Sector Undertaking like any other undertakings of Union of India and therefore, the rules/regulations/orders of the Union of India will apply which has been rightly applied and adopted by the respondent-NJPC in respect of the appointments and fixation of pay and seniority of the petitioners. In such circumstances, the benefits of the rules of the State Government cannot be extended to the petitioners in the service of respondent-NJPC. Mr. O.P. Thakur, learned counsel has also brought to our notice Swamys Compilation "on Reservations & Concessions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Ex-servicemen Sportsmen, Compassionate Appointments, Physically Handicapped and SEBC (Mandal Commission), Fifth Edition,1996", to contend that for filling up of vacancies reserved for Ex-servicemen, in Civil Services of Union of India or their Corporations, Boards and Public Undertakings, the vacancies should be notified to the DG(R) Rajya Zila Sainik Boards. In the present case, no vacancy was notified by NJ.P.C. under those instructions, therefore, the relevant rules of the State Govt. will squarely cover the cases of the petitioners. We have perused the relevant rules/ instructions contained in the Compilation. All vacancies reserved for priority categories in Group C and D posts of the Central Government, Public Sector Banks and Public Sector Undertakings under the Central Government are notified to this Cell for sponsoring suitable candidates and the Ex-servicemen shall have to apply for recruitment in the prescribed application form (Appendix -I). All vacancies reserved for priority categories in Group C and D posts of the Central Government, Public Sector Banks and Public Sector Undertakings under the Central Government are notified to this Cell for sponsoring suitable candidates and the Ex-servicemen shall have to apply for recruitment in the prescribed application form (Appendix -I). In these instructions it is stated that the vacancies reserved for Ex-servicemen shall be filled in by open competitive examination and otherwise that by open competitive examination in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules. The method and procedure of filling of reserved vacancies are noted at pages 328-329 of the compilation. According to the learned counsel since the vacancies were notified to the Director of Sainik Welfare Board (Ex-servicemen Cell), Hamirpur,by the respondent-NJPC such procedure will clearly show that the vacancies were reserved for Ex-servicemen and their pay and seniority has to be fixed by taking their past service into consideration under Rules 1972 and 1985. 13. We have repeatedly concluded in the earlier part of this judgment that the respondent-NJPC has notified the vacancies not only to the Sainik Welfare Board (Ex-servicemen Cell),Hamirpur but to all other Employment Exchanges and in this view of the matter it cannot be again said that the notification of vacancies to Sainik Welfare Board will give rise to the assumption and presumption of the petitioners that the posts against which their names were sponsored by the Ex-servicemen Cell were reserved for Ex-servicemen only and not to the other general category candidates. For the purpose of recruitment of vacancies reserved in Ex-servicemen, Special Selection Board has to be constituted to under take the process of recruitment through prescribed recruiting agencies and a representative of the DG(R) may also be associated with such Board (see page 330 of Swamys Compilation) The Government of India has framed Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979. The reservation of vacancies under these rules will apply only to the categories of Group C and Group D posts and not to the workmen of the respondent-NJPC which are categorized as W-l to W-11. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the Government of India has reserved post to the Ex-servicemen in Central Government service and Public Sector Undertakings/Corporations/Boards etc.. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the Government of India has reserved post to the Ex-servicemen in Central Government service and Public Sector Undertakings/Corporations/Boards etc.. the respondent-NJPC should ipso facto apply the rules framed by the State Government to such categories of petitioners in the project as they were employed in the Public Sector Undertakings in Himachal Pradesh, deserves to be rejected. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the petitioners have joined the service of the respondent-NJPC, with legitimate expectation that on their re-employment in Civil Services, they will get the benefits of their past service for the purpose of fixation of pay and seniority and they have on their own never applied for these posts but their names were sponsored by the Director, Sainik Welfare Board (Ex-servicemen Cell), Hamirpur and thus they bona fide believed that they would get all the benefits being Ex-servicemen and that they will be governed by the rules framed by the State of H.P. We are afraid that the petitioners cannot claim the doctrine of legitimate expectation in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases. The names of the petitioners were sponsored on requisition sent by the respondent-NJPC to the various Employment Exchanges of the State including Ex-servicemen Ceil of Sainik Welfare Board, Hamirpur. Their names were sponsored by the Director, Sainik Welfare Board not against the reserved vacancies of Ex-servicemen but in the General Category including the names of other similarly situated persons and out of 26 sponsored Ex-servicemen for consideration, the petitioners were appointed after they were duly selected by the Selection Board of respondent-NJPC. The petitioners were offered the appointments on their selection with the clear and unambiguous conditions stipulated in their appointment orders and they accepted those terms and conditions without protest and thereafter joined the posts in the pay scale stipulated therein. There is no stipulation in their appointment letters that their pay and seniority will be fixed on the basis of past service rendered by them. The petitioners, therefore, cannot be permitted to urge that they joined the service of the respondent-NJPC on the basis of the legitimate expectation that their past services will be counted for the fixation of pay and seniority. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not seriously argued for claiming reliefs Nos (iii) and (iv) noted in first part of the judgment. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not seriously argued for claiming reliefs Nos (iii) and (iv) noted in first part of the judgment. However, from the averments made by respondent-NJPC in its written statement we are satisfied that the petitioners cannot equate themselves with the State Government employees as well as Seconded employees of the H.P. State Electricity Board who are serving with the respondent-NJPC under the terms and conditions of the Secondment. The respondent-NJPC is paying Hill Compensatory Allowance to its employees as per rules and regulations framed by it and the petitioners being the employees of the respondent-NJPC are squarely covered by those rules and regulations. The respondent-NJPC is a Public Sector Undertakings, under Ministry of Power to the Government of India and the job specification is in existence in all such Public Sector-Undertakings. The job specification has been specified by the respondent-NJPC for different categories of its employees and the petitioners have been categorized under category of workmen and their level in the workmen category starts from W-l to W-11. The respondent-NJPC while categorizing the petitioners in such categories have taken into consideration their qualifications and experience and in this view of the matter, the petitioners cannot be held entitled for their placement under the categories of supervisor as well as executive as these categories are quite different than the categories against which the petitioners were appointed. 16. No other point has been urged by learned counsel on either side. 17. For the above-stated reasons, we find no force in both the writ petitions. They are accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.