JUDGMENT : (Sandeep Sharma, J.) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “(i) That the Respondents may kindly be directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioner by giving benefit of full military service i.e.16 years. (ii) The Respondents may kindly be directed to pay the interest @ 9% on the amount of arrear of pay fixation which was unreasonably denied to the petitioner till date.” 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ramesh Kaundal, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that benefit of approved military service for the purpose of fixation of pay cannot be denied in terms of amendment carried out in Rule 5 of new Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972 (in short “Rules”), rather in terms of aforesaid notification, period of approved military service rendered prior to attaining the minimum age and educational qualification prescribed for appointment to the relevant services by the candidates appointed against reserved vacancies shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority. 3. Though, by way of filing detailed reply to the petition, claim of the petitioner, as has been put-forth in the petition, has been seriously refuted by the respondents, but it is not in dispute that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6443 of 2021 titled as Babu Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh alongwith connected matters, wherein moot question was that whether the benefit of approved military service for the purpose of pay fixation in terms of sub-rule 1 of rule 5 of Rules, 1972, can be denied to the Ex-servicemen in terms of amendment carried out in aforesaid Rule vide Notification dated 29.1.2018, wherein it came to be provided that period of approved military service rendered after attaining minimum age and educational qualification prescribed for the service concerned by the candidate against reserved vacancy shall count towards fixation of pay in that service at the time of first civil employment against reserved vacancy. In afore case, Division Bench of this Court having taken note of its earlier judgment rendered in CWP No. 488 of 2001 titled as V.K.Behal & Ors. Vs. In afore case, Division Bench of this Court having taken note of its earlier judgment rendered in CWP No. 488 of 2001 titled as V.K.Behal & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., which was subsequently affirmed by Hon’ble Apex Court held in R.K. Bharwal’s case that in all cases, past service in the Armed Forces shall be counted from the date, when Ex-serviceman acquired the minimum educational qualification and no benefit can be given for army service rendered prior to attaining such qualification. Division Bench of this Court in aforesaid judgment held that once it is apparent from the judgment in V.K.Behal (supra) that rule 5(1) of the Rules are read down to the extent it provided for benefit of counting approved military service towards seniority in the service, there cannot be any dispute qua the entitlement of Ex-serviceman for counting of approved military service towards fixation of pay. It would be apt to take note of following paras of the aforesaid judgment. “12. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgments rendered by learned Single Judges in cases detailed herein above, State has filed Letters Patent Appeals captioned herein above, praying therein to set aside judgments passed by learned Single Judges and uphold its action in denying benefit of approved military service for the purpose of fixation of pay, to those persons, who had not attained minimum age and educational qualification prescribed for the service concerned, while being appointed to the posts reserved for that category. 13. Moot question, which needs to be determined /adjudicated in the cases at hand is that, whether the benefit of approved military service for the purpose of pay fixation in terms of sub-rule 1 of rule 5 of Rules, 1972, can be denied to the Ex-servicemen in terms of amendment carried out in aforesaid rule 5 vide Notification dated 29.1.2018, wherein it has been provided that only the period of approved military service rendered after attaining minimum age and educational qualification prescribed for the service concerned by the candidate against reserved vacancy shall count towards fixation of pay in that service at the time of first civil employment against reserved vacancy. 14. Mr. 14. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Additional Advocate General representing the State, while inviting attention of this court to the judgment rendered by Division Bench in V.K. Behal supra, which has been further upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court, argued that in all cases, benefit of past service can only be available from the date, when Ex-serviceman acquired age and minimum educational qualification and as such, no benefit can be given for the army service rendered prior to the date of acquiring educational qualification. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Additional Advocate General further argued that the Division Bench in V.K. Behal supra has held that Ex-servicemen though may avail benefit of fixation of but cannot be given benefit of past service towards their seniority in the civil service and such benefit can only be available from the date, when they acquired age and minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post in question. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that Notification dated 29.1.2018 amending thereby rule 5 is strictly in conformity with the judgment passed by Division Bench in V.K. Behal supra and as such, same cannot be interfered with. 15. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents in the appeals and petitioners in the Civil Writ Petition/Civil Writ Petition (Original Application)s,, who are beneficiaries of provisions contained under rule 5 of the Rules 1972, contended that at no point of time, part of sub-rule 1 of rule 5 which deals with the relevant benefit, ever came to be dealt with by Division Bench while delivering decision in V.K. Behal and as such, observation, if any, made in the aforesaid judgment with regard to acquisition of qualification for availing benefit of approved military service cannot be attracted in those cases, where employees appointed against the posts reserved for this category are only seeking benefit of approved military service towards fixation of pay. While inviting attention of this court to judgment of Division Bench in Avtar Singh Dyal v. H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. CWP No. 4654 of 2013 and connected matter, decided on 26.11.2014, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Ex-servicemen were held entitled for grant of benefit of counting the approved military service, towards fixation of pay. While inviting attention of this court to judgment of Division Bench in Avtar Singh Dyal v. H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. CWP No. 4654 of 2013 and connected matter, decided on 26.11.2014, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Ex-servicemen were held entitled for grant of benefit of counting the approved military service, towards fixation of pay. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners also invited attention of this court to judgment passed by learned Single Judge dated 15.7.2020 in CWPOA No. 231 of 20119 titled Amar Nath and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and connected matter, which has been otherwise laid challenge in above captioned appeals, by the State. 16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that there is no dispute amongst the parties that the petitioners in the writ petitions as well as respondents in the Letters Patent Appeals having been filed by the State are Exservicemen and they all have been appointed against the posts reserved for Ex-servicemen in various Departments of State of Himachal Pradesh. 17. Though, initially this category was getting benefit of approved military service in terms of Rule 5 (1) of the Rules, 1972, for counting seniority in service apart from fixation of pay but Division Bench of this Court in V.K. Behal supra, which has been further upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court, has read down rule 5(1) of the Rules, 1972, to the extent, it provided for counting of the approved military service towards seniority in the subsequent service of the State. It is also not in dispute that in V.K. Behal supra, Division Bench held that the benefit of past service can only be available from a date when Ex- serviceman acquired the age and minimum educational qualification and no benefit can be given for the army service rendered prior to the date of acquisition of such qualification. 18. In compliance to aforesaid observation made by Division Bench of this Court in V.K. Behal supra, rule 5 was amended vide Notification dated 29.1.2018 providing therein that 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. 19. 19. Now drawing strength from the aforesaid amendment carried out in the said rule, benefit of approved military service towards fixation of pay is being restricted to the period of approved military service, rendered after attaining the minimum age and educational qualification prescribed for the post, on which such Ex-serviceman is appointed. 20. Since it is quite apparent from the judgment in V.K. Behal supra, that rule 5(1) has been read down to the extent it had provided benefit of counting approved military service towards seniority in the service, there cannot be any dispute qua the entitlement of Ex-serviceman for counting of approved military service towards fixation of pay. However, in the cases at hand, State by way of issuing Notifications dated 29.1.2018 and 30.1.2018 has attempted to deny benefit of approved military service to the Ex-serviceman for the purpose of pay fixation. Vide communication dated 30.1.2018, issued by Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to various officers of the State, it has been conveyed that in terms of judgment of this court in V.K. Behal, benefit of seniority as per 1972 Rules and the Ex-servicemen.. (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh Technical Services) Rules, 1985 are to be reviewed and seniority lists in all cadres are to be reframed accordingly showing position as on 29.12.2008, when this Court had read down and declared the rule 5(1) of the Rules, 1972 unconstitutional, insofar as it gives benefit of counting of past army service towards seniority in civil employment in the case of ex-servicemen, who have not joined the Armed forces during the period of emergency. However, the ex- servicemen appointed against the vacancies reserved for ex- servicemen in civil employment shall be entitled to avail the benefit of fixation of pay from a date when the exservicemen attain minimum age and educational qualification eligibility criteria prescribed in the rules. The fixation of pay will be in accordance with the instructions issued by the Finance Department from time to time. The above referred instructions dated 17.5.2013 were rescinded accordingly. 21. The fixation of pay will be in accordance with the instructions issued by the Finance Department from time to time. The above referred instructions dated 17.5.2013 were rescinded accordingly. 21. There cannot be any quarrel with the fact that now Ex- servicemen who did not join the Armed Forces during period of emergency are not entitled to have benefit of approved military service for the purpose of seniority but the action of the State, in not giving benefit of approved military service towards fixation of pay of the ex-servicemen is not sustainable in the eye of law being arbitrary. Once aforesaid right stands conferred upon Ex-serviceman in terms of provisions of sub-rule 1 of rule5 of f1972 rules, which still exists in the rule book, amendment if any, carried out in the aforesaid rules after passing of judgment in V.K. Behal supra cannot be otherwise made applicable retrospectively qua those Ex- servicemen, who otherwise stand appointed against the posts reserved for this category prior to issuance of Notification dated 29.1.2018. Perusal of aforesaid Notification which has been extracted herein above, clearly reveals that these amended rules were to come into force from the date of publication in Rajpatra/E- gazette of Himachal Pradesh i.e. 29.1.2018, meaning thereby that the Ex-servicemen who stood appointed prior to issuance of aforesaid Notification against the posts reserved for this category, otherwise cannot be denied benefit of approved military service towards fixation of pay, on the ground of minimum age and educational eligibility criteria. 22. Otherwise also, this issue is no more res integra in terms of judgment of this court in Avtar Singh Dyal case supra, wherein it has been held that right of Ex-serviceman to avail the benefit of counting approved military service towards fixation of pay in terms of sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of 1972 rules cannot be denied/defeated even if an Exserviceman had not joined Armed Forces during emergency. Relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced herein below: “Rule 5(1) of the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh State Non- Technical Services) Rules, 1972, reads thus: “(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.” 8. In case the aforesaid rule is minutely analyzed, it would be seen that it comprises of two parts, 1st pertains to counting of service for the purpose of fixation of pay and 2nd pertains to counting of service for the purpose of seniority. 9. The question therefore, required to be determined is as to whether this court while deciding V.K.Behal’s case (supra) declined all the benefits provided under Rule 5(1) (supra) to those exservicemen, who admittedly had joined the Armed Forces as a career. In our humble and considered opinion the court has only adjudicated upon the benefit of counting of past army service towards seniority in civil employment and has not adjudicated upon the conferment of benefit of past army service in so far it pertains to fixation of pay. In fact this claim was neither agitated by the petitioners therein nor adjudicated upon by this court. Rather what appears from the perusal of judgment is that even the petitioners therein had no objection in case financial benefit like fixation of pay was granted to the ex-servicemen, as would be clear from para-3 of report, which reads as follows:- “3. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioners by Sh.Dalip Sharma is that the Rules are unconstitutional because they give benefit of even those ex-servicemen who had not joined service in the armed forces during the period of emergency. According to the petitioners, the persons who join the armed forces when the situation in the Country is normal do not do anything extra-ordinary and they join the armed forces like any other career and therefore, there is no rationale for giving them benefit of the service rendered by them in the armed forces for the purposes of pay and seniority. Sh. Dalip Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners had urged that he is not in any manner arguing that the ex- servicemen do not form a separate class. He submits that to satisfy the tests of Article 14 not only should the classification be justified but there should be a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Sh. Dalip Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners had urged that he is not in any manner arguing that the ex- servicemen do not form a separate class. He submits that to satisfy the tests of Article 14 not only should the classification be justified but there should be a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It is his submission that if the object is to rehabilitate the ex-serviceman this object is served by providing reservations to them. However, according to him, there is no justification in granting them the benefit of seniority by adding the period of service rendered by them in the Army. He submits that once the persons are recruited from various sources and become members of one service no further distinction can be made between them on the ground of the past service rendered in a totally unrelated employment. In the alternative he submits that the benefit, if any, should be restricted to grant of financial benefits like fixation of pay only and the rights of other individuals who joined service much before the ex-servicemen cannot be jeopardized by giving the ex-servicemen benefit of adding the service rendered by them in the armed forces for reckoning their seniority. According to him, the case of ex-servicemen who joined armed forces during the period of emergency when the Nation was facing foreign aggression or when the sovereignty and integrity of the Country was at stake, stands on a completely different footing and the exservicemen who joined during emergency have to be treated as a different class. The benefit given to such ex-servicemen who joined during emergency cannot be extended to the person who joined service during normalcy. In the alternative it is urged that even if the Rule is held to be valid the deemed date of appointment cannot be from a date prior to such persons acquiring the minimum educational eligibility criteria prescribed in the Rules.” 10. Notably even this court did not find any illegality in so far as the pay of ex-servicemen was protected, as would be clear from the following observations:- “10. There may exist an intelligible criteria for providing reservation to ex-servicemen. The object is also reasonable i.e.. to rehabilitate the ex-servicemen but this object can be achieved by providing reservations to them. Nobody is against such reservation. Their pay can also be protected. There may exist an intelligible criteria for providing reservation to ex-servicemen. The object is also reasonable i.e.. to rehabilitate the ex-servicemen but this object can be achieved by providing reservations to them. Nobody is against such reservation. Their pay can also be protected. The problem arises when there is a conflict between persons from the civil society who have joined service much earlier than the ex-servicemen but then they are placed lower when the ex-servicemen who are given benefit of their past service regardless of the fact whether they have joined during emergency or not.” 11. Once this is the position, the respondents cannot under pretext of judgment in V.K.Behal’s case (supra), being sub-judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, deny to the petitioners the benefit of approved military service for counting the same towards fixation of pay. 12. In so far as the question of counting the same towards the seniority is concerned, the same shall essentially have to abide by the decision of the apex court in V.K.Behal’s case. In the event of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ultimately deciding in favour of the exservicemen, then needless to say that the same benefit shall also have to be extended to the petitioners. 13. With these observations, the petitions are partly allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of approved military service towards fixation of pay after considering their cases against the vacancies of ex-servicemen, which have arisen in the year 2012. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment on the file of connected matter.” 4. Recently, Coordinate Bench of this Court having taken note of afore judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Babu Ram (supra), passed a judgment in CWP No. 5244 of 2021 titled as Ganesh Dutt Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, wherein it specifically came to be ruled that benefit of approved military service for the purpose of pay fixation in terms of Rule 5 of Rules cannot be denied to ex-servicemen in terms of amendment carried out vide notification dated 29.01.2018. 5. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid judgment that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in Babu Ram’s (supra), which has otherwise attained finality and as such, case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. 6. 5. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid judgment that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in Babu Ram’s (supra), which has otherwise attained finality and as such, case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. 6. Consequently, in view of above, the directions contained in Babu Ram (supra) rendered by Division Bench of this Court are ordered to be made mutatis mutandis applicable in the present case for all intents and purposes. Necessary benefits in terms of afore judgment, shall also be granted to the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any.