JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. Aggrieved by the judgment, dated 18.10.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No. 6435/2008, whereby petition filed by the respondent came to be allowed, the appellant-University has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal. Facts lie in narrow encompass. 2 The respondent had filed O.A. No.413/1999 before the H.P. Administrative Tribunal (in short, the “Tribunal”) praying for grant of following substantive reliefs: i) That the respondent No.1 may be directed to grant to the applicant full benefits in terms of rule 5 of the Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies) in H.P.State in (Non-technical services) Rules, 1972 and to refix his seniority in the cadre of Junior Scale Stenographers and so on and to grant him retrospective consequential benefits of promotion, fixation of pay, release of arrears, etc. resulting therefrom forthwith, as the respondent No.1 is having employees on its establishment from other departments of the periods prior to 1.11.1978 and the applicant is accordingly entitled for fixation of seniority after taking into account his entire period of approved Armed forces service and the same should not be limited to 1.11.1978 as has been done by respondent No.1. ii) That the impugned order Annexure A/1 may be quashed and setaside and the respondent No.1 be directed to promote the applicant to the next higher post of Private Secretary, from retrospective effect i.e. from the date his junior, respondent No.2 has been promoted as Private Secretary and to grant all consequential benefits including arrears of pay etc. 3. On the abolition of the Tribunal (at that time) the original application was transferred to this Court in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of Decided and Pending Cases and Applications) Act, 2008 and registered as CWP(T) No. 6435 of 2008. 4 The respondent joined Indian Army on 26.6.1976 and was discharged on 30.6.1986 after completing the minimum prescribed period of the service. Thereafter, he got his name registered with local employment exchange for reemployment in civil service. 4 The respondent joined Indian Army on 26.6.1976 and was discharged on 30.6.1986 after completing the minimum prescribed period of the service. Thereafter, he got his name registered with local employment exchange for reemployment in civil service. He applied for the post of Junior Scale Stenographer that was advertised by the appellant-University and came to be selected and accordingly appointed on 15.7.1988 against the vacancy reserved for ex-serviceman and, therefore, claimed that he was entitled for fixation of pay and seniority after taking into account his approved period of armed forces service in terms of Rule 5 of the Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies) in H.P. State in (Non-technical services) Rules, 1972 ( in short, “1972 Rules”). However, the matter with regard to assignment of seniority to the respondent after taking into account his approved period of armed forces service was kept pending constraining him to approach the learned Tribunal. 5. The appellant-University filed its reply, wherein it disputed the applicability of provisions of Rule 5 of the 1972 Rules and averred that the same could not override the provisions of the statute; and further claimed that the respondent had been assigned the seniority strictly in accordance with para 7.8 of the statute. 6. It appears that during the course of hearing before the learned Single Judge, the respondent placed on record a notification dated 3.1.2009 issued by the Registrar of the appellant-University, which reads as under: “In pursuance of the decision of the Board of Management taken vide item No.6 of its meeting held on 28.09.1992 and clarification contained in letter No. Agr.C(17)1/ 06 dated 28.11.2008 from the Principal Secretary (Agriculture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh Shimla, the Vice Chancellor, CSK HPKV has been pleased to decide that the decision of Board of Management as above be implemented and the benefit of seniority be extended to the Ex-servicemen as per the Armed (Reservation of Forces Personnel Demobilised Vacancies in Himachal State Non Technical Services) Rules, 1972. This is in continuation of this office notification No.822/92HPKV(GA)/66484599 dated 19.10.1992. Other notifications, if any, issued on the subject from time to time shall stand annulled except notifications/instructions with regard to pay fixation benefit to the ex-servicemen.” 7. This is in continuation of this office notification No.822/92HPKV(GA)/66484599 dated 19.10.1992. Other notifications, if any, issued on the subject from time to time shall stand annulled except notifications/instructions with regard to pay fixation benefit to the ex-servicemen.” 7. The learned Single Judge solely on the basis of the aforesaid notification allowed the petition and held the respondent to be entitled to the benefit of 1972 Rules for the purpose of fixation of pay and seniority and accordingly, the appellant-University was directed to pay the respondent all the benefits on or before 31.1.2011, failing which the respondent was further held entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on this amount. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant-University preferred Civil Review No. 101/2011, however the same was also dismissed and it was constrained to file the instant appeal. 9. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Advocate, for the appellant-University that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the petition that too solely on the basis of the aforesaid notification, especially, when the same was not even implemented by the appellant-University because of the following reasons: 1. Notification involves amendment in statutes of the University and the amendment in the CSKHPKV statutes as per sub section 1 of Section 54 of CSKHPKV Act can be considered only by the Board of Management of the University. 2. No amendment in the concerned statute has been made by the Board of Management of the University so far. 3. The notification in question has larger impact and affect University employees in masses. This aspect has also been incorporated by the Hon’ble H.P. High Court in CWPT 6440/2008 decided on 9.11.201 that “ by way of abundant caution, it is clarified that in case any other employees are affected in the process, they shall also be put to notice. 4. The decision shall affect the settled seniority position as per express provisions of CSKHPKV statutes quoted in the foregoing paragraphs of larger section of employees which in turn shall attract more court cases from other affected employees, reversion of confirmed employees on large scalemany employees stand retired, creation of supernumerary posts/additional posts for which permission of H.P. Govt. is required H.P. Govt. is not considering such proposals due to economy measures and many other administrative problems including extra financial burden on University exchequer etc. 5. is required H.P. Govt. is not considering such proposals due to economy measures and many other administrative problems including extra financial burden on University exchequer etc. 5. No date of effect of the decision taken has been mentioned in the notification. As a matter of rules, any decision or notification makes specific mention about the sate of the effect i.e. retrospective or prospective. 6. Retrospective effect of amendment in this case cannot be considered since it involves amendment of University Statutes and amendment in the statutes only takes place with prospective effect. 10. It is further contended that the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in V.K. Behal and ors. vs. State of H.P. and ors. 2009 LIC 1812 and the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K. Barwal and ors. vs. State of H.P. and ors. (2017) 16 SCC 803 , wherein judgment in V.K. Behal’s case has been affirmed. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate, for the respondent would argue that even if it is assumed that the case of the appellant-University is covered by the judgments, referred to above, even then, this court should, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, protect the pay and seniority of the respondent. He would further argue that since the respondent was appointed at the time when the national emergency was in vogue between 26.6.1975 to 21.3.1977 when the security of India had been threatened by internal disturbances, he was entitled to the benefits of the 1972 Rules in terms of judgments rendered by this Court as also Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred to above. 12. As regards the contention of the respondent qua his entitlement for counting of the benefits for the past army service, on the basis of his employment having been made during the national emergency, towards civil employment, the same is absolutely fallacious and without merit. 13. It was after considering threat posed by external aggression during Indo-China war in the year 1962 and Indo-Pak war in the year 1971, 1972 Rules were framed since the cry of the time was that persons should join the armed forces to defend the integrity and sovereignty of the nation. 14. 13. It was after considering threat posed by external aggression during Indo-China war in the year 1962 and Indo-Pak war in the year 1971, 1972 Rules were framed since the cry of the time was that persons should join the armed forces to defend the integrity and sovereignty of the nation. 14. It is well known that many persons in such situation were not inclined to join armed forces and only those with feeling for the honour of the nation rose to such occasions. Therefore, in the given circumstances, persons who joined armed forces after threat by external aggression was over did it with their own volition as career choice and cannot, therefore, be treated at par with those persons, who joined armed forces when the nation faced with foreign aggressions. 15. It is on this analogy that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. K. Barwal’s case while affirming the judgment of this Court in V.K. Behal’s case held that two categories of ex-servicemen i.e. one who joined at the time of external aggression and other, who joined at later point of time, could not be equated with each other. Thus, latter category was not entitled to counting of their service rendered in armed forces for the purpose of their seniority on joining the civilian post. 16. Now insofar as the national emergency imposed on account of political instability is concerned, the same cannot, by any standard, be equated with emergency imposed when there was threat by external aggression. At the time of national emergency imposed on account of political instability, there was no dearth of people joining armed forces. 17. Apart from above, it would be noticed that it is rule 5(1) of 1972 Rules, which deals with grant of benefit available to an ex-serviceman, which was originally notified on 28.3.1972, and reads as follows: “Service rendered in the armed forces including the period spent on training prior to Commission in the case of Commissioned Officers, shall count, in full, towards seniority and fixation of pay under the State Government in the post to which he is first appointed against the vacancy reserved under Rule 3.” 18. This rule however was amended vide notification dated 6.12.1980, which reads as under:“ 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 Govt. at the first opportunity they had after they joined the military service or training prior to the Commission.” 19. The aforesaid provision was again amended and reads as under: “(1) Only the period of approved military service rendered after attaining the minimum age prescribed for appointment to the service concerned by the candidates appointed against reserved vacancies under the relevant rules, shall count towards fixation of pay and seniority in that service. This benefit shall however be allowed at the time of first civil employment only and it shall not be admissible in subsequent appointments of ex-servicemen who are already employed under the State/Central Govt. against reserved posts.” 20. It is precisely this rule that came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in V.K. Behal’s case and was held unconstitutional insofar as it gave benefit of counting past army service towards seniority in civil employment in case of ex-serviceman, who had not joined armed forces during the period of emergency. 21. As observed above, the judgment in V.K. Behal’s case stands affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K. Barwal’s case. 22. Additionally, We find that it was solely on the basis of the notification dated 3.1.2009 issued by the Registrar of the appellant-University that the petition filed by the respondent came to be allowed, however once this notification had not been implemented by the appellant-University itself for the reasons, as stated above, then the petition filed by the respondent could not have been allowed. 23. Now, adverting to the plea of the respondent that the benefit granted to him be not withdrawn, We really do not find force in such contention as this Court is not only bound by the judgment rendered by the coordinate bench of this Court in V.K. Behal’s case, but also bound under Article 141 of the Constitution of India by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K. Barwal’s case. 24. In view of aforesaid discussion, we find merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly allowed. 24. In view of aforesaid discussion, we find merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment, dated 18.10.2010, is set aside and resultantly the petition filed by the respondent being CWP(T) No. 6435/2008 is ordered to be dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.