ORDER : By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the averments made hereinabove the present petition may kindly be allowed and the respondents may kindly be directed to re-fix the pay and pension of the petitioner after his retirement strictly as per Rule 22 (1) (a) (i), which has not been done due to the fact that option exercised by the petitioner has not been sent to the Director office by the officials of the office of Deputy Director of Education Mandi, District Mandi, where the same was submitted well in time immediately at the time of promotion of petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner had to suffer a huge loss and till date is suffering the same and in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of petition are that the petitioner is an Ex-serviceman. After discharge of petitioner from Armed Forces, he got himself registered with Ex-Servicemen Cell, Hamirpur for the purpose of re-employment. Petitioner was offered appointment as Lecturer (School Cadre) against the Ex-serviceman quota vide office order dated January, 2001 and was posted at GSSS, Garli, District Kangra. The earlier order of appointment of petitioner was partially modified in March, 2001 and petitioner was ordered to be posted at GSSS, Polian Purohita, District Una against vacancy. 3. Petitioner was promoted as Principal on ad-hoc basis vide notification dated 29.09.2005 and was posted at GSSS, Ropa, District Mandi, H.P. Petitioner joined as Principal at GSSS, Ropa, District Mandi on 05.10.2005. Petitioner superannuated on 31.05.2010. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that on his ad-hoc promotion as Principal, vide notification dated 29.09.2005, he had opted for promotion increment within one month and sought the next increment w.e.f. 01.04.2006 on the basis of date of increment in the lower cadre. Respondents, however, fixed the pay of the petitioner vide office order issued in March, 2006 and his next increment was shown to be applicable w.e.f. 01.10.2006. 5. Petitioner continuously represented to the respondents against the date of fixation of increment in his case, but his grievance remained un-redressed till his superannuation. Respondents, however, fixed the pay of the petitioner vide office order issued in March, 2006 and his next increment was shown to be applicable w.e.f. 01.10.2006. 5. Petitioner continuously represented to the respondents against the date of fixation of increment in his case, but his grievance remained un-redressed till his superannuation. It was only on 20.07.2013 that an order was passed by respondent No.2, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the ad-hoc promotion of petitioner was regularized on 25.08.2007 and he was required to exercise an option as per the provisions of F.R. 22 (1) (a) (i) within one month from the date of regular promotion orders, which he had failed. The claim of the petitioner was also rejected on the ground that, since, the Government had again regularized the ad-hoc promotion of 345 Principals (School), on the basis of Review DPC dated 31.12.2012, and the case of petitioner was included therein, hence, the petitioner should have exercised a fresh option to get his pay fixed before the Controlling Officer within stipulated period. Having failed to get justice, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition. 6. The respondents have filed their reply. In reply, the respondents took the stand that petitioner had exercised his option on 07.11.2009. The earlier option exercised by petitioner after his ad-hoc promotion was not admissible. In such view of the matter, the respondents tried to justify their action. 7. During the pendency of the petition, respondent No.2 in pursuance to orders passed by this Court placed on record an order of regularization of petitioner issued vide notification dated 31.12.2012. The name of the petitioner was included at serial No. 316 of the list attached to the said notification and the date of ad-hoc as well as regular promotion was shown as 29.09.2005. Respondent No.2 vide written instructions dated 01.08.2022, tried to take another stand that the petitioner was regularized as Principal vide notification dated 31.12.2012 and the notification dated 25.08.2007 wherein at serial No. 516 the name of Mani Ram was reflected, was in respect of some other incumbent and not the petitioner. This was stated to be the reason of not conveying the regularization order dated 25.08.2007 to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 filed yet another affidavit dated 20.09.2022 during the proceedings of this case, this time taking a different stand in following terms: “2. This was stated to be the reason of not conveying the regularization order dated 25.08.2007 to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 filed yet another affidavit dated 20.09.2022 during the proceedings of this case, this time taking a different stand in following terms: “2. That the Govt. regularized the ad-hoc promotion of Principal vide notification dated 1.1.2008. The order dated 1.1.2008 was also endorsed to the concerned. The petitioner was also asked to exercise the option within a month but he failed to do so. The ad-hoc promotion of Principals were again regularized by the Govt. vide notification dated 31.12.2012 and petitioner was asked to submit the option for his pay fixation retrospectively from the date of his joining on ad-hoc basis i.e. 5.10.2005. The petitioner submitted his option and his pay was fixed accordingly vide office order dated 30.07.2013.” 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 9. The respondents have given different versions with respect to the date of regularization of ad-hoc promotion of petitioner to the post of Principal (School). While rejecting the representation of the petitioner, respondent No.2 vide order dated 20.07.2013 specifically mentioned that petitioner was regularized on 25.08.2007 and he was to exercise the option on or before 24.09.2007. The version of petitioner that he was not aware about his regularization order till his personal hearing on 22.12.2012 in the Directorate of Higher Education was also considered to be correct. The regularization of ad-hoc promotion of petitioner was then said to have been made vide order dated 31.12.2012, as a result of Review DPC. As against the above stand, respondents made deviation while submitting its reply. Whereas, the date of regularization of adhoc promotion of petitioner was maintained as 25.08.2007 and it was submitted that petitioner had given his option for pay fixation on 6.11.2009. Such option being time barred, could not be considered. 10. As noticed above, the regularization order dated 31.12.2012 issued by respondent No.1 in respect of Principals promoted on ad-hoc basis, petitioner was shown at serial No. 316 with date of ad-hoc and regular promotion as 29.09.2005. Such option being time barred, could not be considered. 10. As noticed above, the regularization order dated 31.12.2012 issued by respondent No.1 in respect of Principals promoted on ad-hoc basis, petitioner was shown at serial No. 316 with date of ad-hoc and regular promotion as 29.09.2005. In communication dated 01.08.2022 issued by respondent No.2 to the office of learned Advocate General, it was stated that the petitioner was promoted on regular basis on 25.08.2007 and was in fact regularized vide order dated 31.12.2012 and the person named Mani Ram reflected in regularization order dated 25.08.2007 was some other incumbent. Strangely, in affidavit dated 20.09.2022 of respondent No.2, it was mentioned that the ad-hoc promotion of Principals were regularized by the Government on 01.01.2008 and the orders were endorsed to the concerned Principals. The petitioner was also asked to exercise the option within a month, but he failed to do so and the ad-hoc promotion of Principals were again regularized by the Government vide notification dated 31.12.2012. 11. There is no dispute regarding the fact that ad-hoc promotion was granted to the petitioner on 29.09.2005 and in pursuance thereto the petitioner had joined as Principal, GSSS, Ropa, District Mandi on 05.10.2005. There is also no specific denial to the fact averred by petitioner that he had opted for grant of increment from the date on which he was getting the increment in lower cadre and not from the date of promotion and such communication was made within one month from the ad-hoc promotion of petitioner. 12. Though the respondents initially maintained that the ad-hoc promotion of petitioner was regularized on 25.8.2007, but later it was suggested by way of communication dated 01.08.2022 addressed by respondent No.2 to the office of the learned Advocate General, as placed on record, that the adhoc promotion regularized on 25.08.2007 was in respect of some other Mani Ram and not the petitioner. 13. Respondent No.2 then filed an affidavit dated 20.09.2022 and stated therein that the ad-hoc promotion of Principal was regularized vide notification dated 01.01.2008 and such order was endorsed to all concerned. However, nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the fact that the regularization order allegedly issued on 01.01.2008 included the name of petitioner was communicated to him. The contradictory stand taken by the respondents, fortify the plea of petitioner that he was never communicated the order of regularization. However, nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the fact that the regularization order allegedly issued on 01.01.2008 included the name of petitioner was communicated to him. The contradictory stand taken by the respondents, fortify the plea of petitioner that he was never communicated the order of regularization. That being so, the petitioner could not be expected to extend his option under F.R. 22 (1) (a) (i) within stipulated period of one month. 14. Last but not least, respondents took the stand that the ad-hoc promotion of petitioner was regularized on 31.12.2012 and he should have raised his option within stipulated period thereafter. Such contention is also misconceived. Petitioner had retired on 31.05.2010 and in such view of the matter, there was no occasion for him to have addressed any option after his retirement. 15. In any case the purpose of option under F.R. 22 (1) (a) (i) is to communicate the intent so as to facilitate the completion of formalities regarding fixation/re-fixation of pay. In the instant case, the intent of petitioner was well known to the respondents. He had communicated such intent by giving his option immediately after his ad-hoc promotion. Even on various subsequent dates, the petitioner had been making representations to the respondents and communicating his clear intent. 16. The respondents have tried to defend their action by saying that the petitioner had exercised the option on 06.11.2009 and same being belated could not have been considered. The communication dated 06.11.2009 addressed by petitioner to Deputy Director of Higher Education, Mandi, has been placed on record, which reveals that the said correspondence was in response to letter dated 30.09.2009 issued by the Deputy Director of Higher Education, Mandi regarding the fixation of pay and the petitioner had contested such fixation on the ground that he had already exercised the option within one month from his ad-hoc promotion. In this view of the matter, the objection raised by the respondents is baseless. 17. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioner by granting him the benefit of F.R. 22 (1) (a) (i) from 01.01.2008 on which date the ad-hoc promotion of petitioner was regularized as per latest affidavit dated 20.09.2022 filed by respondent No.2. The respondents are also directed to consequently re-fix the pension of the petitioner accordingly. The respondents are also directed to consequently re-fix the pension of the petitioner accordingly. The needful shall be done by respondent No.2 within two months from the date of passing of this judgment and the arrears, if any, payable to the petitioner, shall also to be paid to him within the aforesaid period. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s) if any.