JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of instant Letters Patent Appeal having been filed by the appellants-State, challenge has been laid to judgment dated 22.3.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No. 11483 of 2008 titled Hakam Ram v. State of HP and Ors, whereby learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition having been preferred by the petitioner (respondent herein), directed as under :- “1. That the respondents-State, latest by 30th June, 2012, shall work out the pay due to the petitioner w.e.f. 7th January 2003, the of his regularization, by giving him the benefit of Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972. 2. That the arrears shall be paid to the petitioner latest by 31st August, 2012, failing which the State shall be liable to pay interest @ 9 % per annum from the date when the amount fell due till the payment of the amount. 3. That if the petitioner, within two months from today, exercise his option to get his Army service counted for the purpose of pension and refunds the benefit already received by him, then the arrears due and payable on this account shall also be paid by the same date and in case not paid, it shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date when the amount fell due till the payment of the amount.” 2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that the petitioner after having served in the Indian Army w.e.f. 16.5.1967 to 1.3.1989, came to be engaged as Surveyor on daily wage basis in August 1989 with the respondent-department and worked in the aforesaid capacity till 31.12.2002. Right from the year, 1990 till 2002, petitioner worked continuously for 240 days each year and w.e.f. 7.1.2003, he was regularized in service as Surveyor and ultimately, superannuated from service on 30.10.2004. 3. In nutshell, claim of the petitioner as emerge from the original application having been filed by him before the HP State Administrative Tribunal, which subsequently, came to be transferred to this Court, is that in terms of Rule 19 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, appellants-respondents-State ought to have given him the option after his regularization as to whether he wanted to get pension under Civil Rules or would prefer to get the benefit for the Army service rendered. By way of aforesaid original application, petitioner (respondent herein) also claimed that service rendered by him in the Army should be taken into consideration while fixing pay from the stage of his regularization in the service. 4. Learned Single Judge while deciding the aforesaid issue placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No. 10333 of 2008, titled Ranjit Chand Katoch v. State of HP and another, wherein learned Single Judge after having considered the Rule 19 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, observed as under:- “6. What emerges from the plain reading of Rule 19 and the decision taken on 26.2.1988, is that the reemployed Government servant can opt to continue to draw military pension or he can get the previous military service counted as qualifying service. However, he will cease to get pension already drawn and the value received for the commutation or a part of military pension and the amount of retirement gratuity including service gratuity. 7. According to sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule 19, the authority while issuing order of substantive appointment to a civil service or post shall alongwith such order require in writing him to exercise the option within three months of the issuance of such order.” 5. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that no such option was ever asked from the petitioner, rather respondent-State claimed before the Court that petitioner was neither employed from the Ex-servicemen Cell nor he was employed against the seat/quota reserved for the Ex-servicemen and as such, there was no question, if any, for calling option from him as provided under Rule 19 of CCS (Pension) Rules, however, this Court having carefully perused Rule 19 of CCS (Pension) Rules is in total agreement with the finding returned by the learned Single Judge that since Rule 19 does not talk about the method of appointment and it is not necessary that the ex-servicemen should have been appointed against the reserved post/category. 6. 6. Similarly, Division Bench of this Court in judgment, titled V.K. Behal and others v. State of H.P. and Ors., latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 402, which has been otherwise taken note by the learned Single Judge while rendering the impugned judgment, has categorically held that even though Ex-servicemen, who were not employed against the post reserved for Ex-servicemen, but had been appointed against the post meant for general category, were entitled to the benefit of Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972, for the purpose of fixation of pay. Since relevant para of the aforesaid judgment has been already taken note of by the learned Single Judge in para-7 of the impugned judgment, this Court finds it not necessary to reproduce the same. 7. Ms. Ritta Goswami, Learned Additional Advocate General, while arguing before us, was unable to point out that judgments, as have been taken note herein above, have not attained finality. As far as another contention raised by, learned Additional Advocate General that learned Single Judge while considering the issue at hand, failed to appreciate that reservation is/was not available for the daily wage services and as such, claim of the petitioner (respondent herein) for considering his case, ought to have been rejected, deserves outright rejection, solely for the reason that material available on record clearly suggests that Department of Personnel vide letter dated 16.7.1993, advised the Department that even the work charge and daily wage posts are to be filled in keeping in view the reservation rules applicable to the ex-servicemen. Ms. Goswami, was unable to indicate material, if any, available on record suggestive of the fact that aforesaid instructions issued by the Department of Personnel were not applicable in the case of the petitioner or same came to be withdrawn. Otherwise also, we find from the record that learned Single Judge while accepting petition having been filed by the petitioner has held that, in case of the petitioner, benefit is being given on both accounts from the date of regularization and not on account of daily wage service. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner came to be regularized as Surveyor w.e.f. 7.1.2003, and thereafter, he retired on 30.10.2004, after rendering service of almost 20 months. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner came to be regularized as Surveyor w.e.f. 7.1.2003, and thereafter, he retired on 30.10.2004, after rendering service of almost 20 months. Learned Single Judge while extending relief to the petitioner has categorically directed the State to work out the pay due to the petitioner w.e.f. 7.1.2003, by giving him the benefit of Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh State Non- Technical Services) Rules, 1972, and as such, appellants-State cannot have any grouse with regard to grant of the aforesaid relief. 8. Having carefully perused the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge while accepting the petition having been filed by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality and infirmity in the same, rather same is based upon proper appreciation of facts as well as rule in vogue and hence, the petition fails and dismissed accordingly.