JUDGMENT : (Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J.) Petitioner is aggrieved against the action of the respondents-H.P. Road Transport Corporation in withdrawing the pay- scale earlier given to him and thereafter re-fixing his pay in the reduced pay-scale. 2. Facts 2(i) Petitioner joined the Indian Army on 07.01.1987. He was released from Army on 31.12.2002. Petitioner had approved military service of 15 years, 7 months and 27 days. 2(ii) Respondent-Corporation conducted a recruitment process for engaging Transport Multi Purpose Assistants (TMPA) in the year 2016. Petitioner participated in the selection process against the quota reserved for ex-servicemen. He was selected as such and appointment order was accordingly issued to him. Petitioner joined as TMPA on contract basis on 06.05.2017. 2(ii) Consequent upon recommendations of the Screening Committee, services of the petitioner were regularized as Conductor w.e.f. 16.11.2020 vide order dated 23.11.2020. Petitioner’s pay was fixed on 16.11.2021 (Annexure P-4) by giving him benefit of his approved military service of 15 years 7 months and 27 days. 2(iii) On 12.09.2024 (Anneuxre P-6), the respondents withdrew the benefit of approved military service given to the petitioner under the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of vacancies in the Himachal State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972. This was statedly done in view of notification dated 29.01.2018 issued by the State Personnel Department as further clarified on 04.03.2024. As per notification dated 29.01.2018 and the letter dated 04.03.2024, requisite minimum age and qualification prescribed for appointment to the civil post is mandatory for getting the benefit of approved military service for pay fixation. According to the respondents, minimum qualification for the post of Conductor as per Recruitment and Promotions (R&P) Rules is 10+2. The petitioner was not in possession of minimum educational qualification, therefore, he was not entitled for the benefit of approved military service for the purpose of pay fixation. 2(iv) On the basis of above office order, the respondents refixed and reducing the pay of the petitioner on 03.10.2024 (Annexure P-5). Benefit of approved military service was not given to the petitioner while re-fixing his pay. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following substantive reliefs:- “i) That the impugned order dated 12.09.2024. 2(iv) On the basis of above office order, the respondents refixed and reducing the pay of the petitioner on 03.10.2024 (Annexure P-5). Benefit of approved military service was not given to the petitioner while re-fixing his pay. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following substantive reliefs:- “i) That the impugned order dated 12.09.2024. 03.10.2024 (Annexure P-5) and (Annexure P-6) passed by the respondents No.2 & 3 may kindly be quashed and set aside being wholly unjustified, arbitrary, illegal, vivod-ab-intio, none stand violative of the judgment dated 15.07.202 titled as Amar Nath & Others Vs. State of H.P. & others by issuing a writ of certiorari and justice be done. ii) That the writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued, Directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to draw his pay in pursuance of vide office order date 02.11.2021 passed by the respondents respectively and not reduced the pay of the petitioner in any case and also not affect any recovery from the pay of the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3. Submissions 3(i) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had appointed the petitioner as TMPA (Contract) on 06.05.2017 on the basis of a recruitment process conducted by them. The said recruitment process was initiated under the Policy for Recruitment of Transport Multipurpose Assistant in Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Annexure R-1). Respondent had formulated separate rules for recruitment for the post of TMPA on contract basis. Petitioner satisfied the eligibility & educational criteria laid down in this policy and the rules for being recruited as TMPA. Pursuant to petitioner’s selection, he was appointed as TMPA (Contract) and joined as such on 06.05.2017. He was regularized in service w.e.f. 16.11.2020 under order issued on 23.11.2020. Petitioner’s Regularization was based upon the recommendations of the Screening Committee. Respondents had justly granted benefit of approved military service to the petitioner and fixed his pay accordingly on 16.11.2021. Action of the respondents in reducing petitioner’s pay by not considering his approved military service on the basis of notification dated 29.01.2018 and the office letter dated 04.03.2024 is not in consonance with law. Reliance in this regard was placed upon a decision rendered in Babu Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. Action of the respondents in reducing petitioner’s pay by not considering his approved military service on the basis of notification dated 29.01.2018 and the office letter dated 04.03.2024 is not in consonance with law. Reliance in this regard was placed upon a decision rendered in Babu Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. , [CWP No. 6443/2021 & connected matters decied on 09.05.2022] as affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the State of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Babu Ram , [SLP(C) Diary No(s). 41608/2022 decided on 25.10.2024] Learned Senior Counsel further urged that the respondent-Corporation’s insistence upon possession of 10+2 qualification is misplaced, as the petitioner was not directly recruited as Conductor. The condition of possessing 10+2 qualification is only for direct recruitment as Conductor as per the R&P Rules for the post of Conductor. Whereas, services of the petitioner were regularized as Conductor under Clause 10 of the R&P Rules, which stipulated 100% by appointment on contract basis from TMPA having three years service failing which by direct recruitment either regular or on contract basis as the case may be. Prayer was accordingly made for setting aside and quashing the impugned orders/decision and for grant of benefit of approved military service to the petitioner towards fixation of his pay scale. 3(ii) Learned counsel for the respondents exhorted that the petitioner was though appointed on contract basis as TMPA but the said appointment was on the basis of a policy. Services of the petitioner were regularized under the R&P Rules for the post of Conductor. As per these Rules, minimum educational qualification required for direct recruitment was 10+2 pass from any Board of School Education/University recognized by the State of H.P. Petitioner was contractually recruited as TMPA on 06.05.2017 but he was not in possession of 10+2 Educational qualification. His services though were regularized, but for want of possessing educational qualification required under the R&P Rules for the post of Conductor, petitioner could not be granted the benefit of approved military service in view of amendment notification dated 29.01.2018 and office letter dated 04.03.2024 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case record. 4(i) Petitioner was appointed on 06.05.2017 as TMPA under the Policy for Recruitment of TMPA (On Contract) in HRTC, (Annexure R-1). 4(i)(a) Clause 2 of the TMPA Policy reads as under:- “2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case record. 4(i) Petitioner was appointed on 06.05.2017 as TMPA under the Policy for Recruitment of TMPA (On Contract) in HRTC, (Annexure R-1). 4(i)(a) Clause 2 of the TMPA Policy reads as under:- “2. Minimum Education Qualification The candidates who are bonafide of H.P. shall be eligible to be recruited as Transport Mulitipurpose Assistant subject to the following conditions:- (i) The candidate should be matriculate from the recognized Board of School Education. (ii) The candidate should possess valid conductor license.” It is not in dispute that petitioner was matriculate from recognized Board of School Education and possessed a valid Conductor license. 4(i)(b) The respondent had also framed ‘Rules for Recruitment of TMPA (On Contract) in HRTC-2016’. The Rules provided that TMPA shall be recruited on contract basis through direct recruitment on the basis of a centralized written examination followed by interview at Divisional Office level having distribution of marks in ratio of 80:20. Relevant part of Rules 6, 7 and 8 of these Rules provides as under:- “6. Recruitment Process The TMPA shall be recruited on contract basis through direct recruitment on the basis of a centralized written examination followed by interview at Divisional Office level having distribution of marks in ration of 80:20 respectively. The broad syllabus of written examination/break up of interview marks is as under:- Written Examination 80Marks A. General Knowledge 50 Marks B. Mathematics 05 Marks C. Hindi 05 Marks D. Traffic Signs and Rules 10 Marks E. Customs of H.P. 10 Marks Interview Marks 20 Marks A. Qualification Marks on the basis of marks obtained in Matric examination Max of 5 B. Current affairs etc. Max of 5 C. Personal Assessment Max of 10 7. Reservation The Reservation roster as applicable in case of direct recruitment of the employees of State Government of Himachal Pradesh shall be applicable in this case. 8. Minimum Education Qualification The candidate who are bonafide of Himachal Pradesh shall be eligible to be recruited as “Transport Multipurpose Assistant” subject to the following conditions:- i) The candidate should have passed matriculation examination from Board of School Education recognized by the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh. ii)The candidate should possess valid conductor license.” Rule 9 provided age and other eligibility conditions as under:- “9. of Himachal Pradesh. ii)The candidate should possess valid conductor license.” Rule 9 provided age and other eligibility conditions as under:- “9. Age & other eligibility conditions A person / candidate shall be eligible to be selected as TMPA if: a) His/her age on 1st January of the year in which he /she applied for the post is between 18 to 45 years (relaxable to SC/ST candidates according to Govt. rules). b) He/She is Bonafide resident of Himachal Pradesh. c) He/ She of sound mind and good health. He has not been disqualified for appointment for Public Service or removed from Public Services on disciplinary ground or has sought voluntary retirement under any Government policy. d) He/she has not been convicted for any offence criminal or on moral turpitude and no criminal case is pending against him/her. Rule 10 delineated the selection procedure for appointment of TMPA as follows:- “ 10. Selection Procedure The following procedure of selection for TMPA shall be adopted:- (a) The Managing Director/Chief General Manager/General Manager or any other officer on behalf of the Managing Director of Himachal Road Transport Corporation shall invite online applications by Issuing advertisement by providing wide publicity, by displaying the recruitment advertisement in HRTC website as well as in two State level news paper both in English and Hindi. b) A minimum period of 20 days shall be given to invite online applications from the applicant residing in Himachal Pradesh. Provided that the detail regarding total number of vacancy reserved for various category of person as per above Rule-6 shall be given in the notice for inviting applications. c) Immediately after the expiry of the period fixed for inviting applications HRTC shall conduct written test within a period of 30 days. d) The Himachal Road Transport Corporation shall display the list of selected candidates on website of HRTC for final interview purpose in the ratio of 1:5, or more as decided by the competent authorities, category wise, on the basis of merit as drawn in the written test and will conduct the interview within 15 days. The result will be displayed on the Website and Notice Board. Before joining HRTC on selection, TMPA shall submit an affidavit in this regard that- (i) He/She is aware about the policy and fixed remunerations to be paid to him/her are acceptable. (ii) He/She shall not seek transfer for performing duties other than the TMPA duties. The result will be displayed on the Website and Notice Board. Before joining HRTC on selection, TMPA shall submit an affidavit in this regard that- (i) He/She is aware about the policy and fixed remunerations to be paid to him/her are acceptable. (ii) He/She shall not seek transfer for performing duties other than the TMPA duties. He/she will not bring any influence for transfer and posting and if any such matter comes to the notice of HRTC management, strict disciplinary action shall be initiated against him under Rule 20 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. (iii) He/She shall not indulge in the acts of indiscipline and also shall not participate in any illegal strike etc; (iv) He/She shall not claim any right for regularization in violation of prescribed procedure and enhancement of wages.” Rule 14 provided the period of engagement of TMPA and for regularization of their contractual appointment as under:- “14. Period of engagement TMPA shall be recruited initially for a period of one year under probation and it can be extended further subject to unblemished and satisfactory performance during this period. TMPA shall be entitled for regularization as Conductor after the period prescribed by the Government for regularization from contractual appointment.” The Rules provided that TMPA shall be ‘entitled’ for regularization as Conductor after rendering contractual service for the period prescribed by the Government for regularization. It is on the basis of above Policy and the Rules that the respondents had conducted the recruitment process for engaging TMPA on contract basis. The petitioner participated in the selection process. Admittedly the petitioner possessed the educational & eligibility criteria set down in the Policy and the Rules for his appointment as TMPA. He was selected and offered appointment as TMPA (Contract) against the quota reserved for ex-servicemen (OBC). Petitioner joined as such on 06.05.2017. His services were regularized by the respondents as Conductor w.e.f. 16.11.2020 on 23.11.2020. Petitioner’s regularization was in terms of Rule 14 that ‘entitled’ him for regularization as Conductor after the period prescribed by the Government for regularization from contractual appointment. 4(ii) At this stage it would be pertinent to refer to Babu Ram, (supra) . His services were regularized by the respondents as Conductor w.e.f. 16.11.2020 on 23.11.2020. Petitioner’s regularization was in terms of Rule 14 that ‘entitled’ him for regularization as Conductor after the period prescribed by the Government for regularization from contractual appointment. 4(ii) At this stage it would be pertinent to refer to Babu Ram, (supra) . The moot issue before the Hon’ble Division bench was as to whether the benefit of approved military service for the purpose of pay fixation in civil employment can be denied to ex-serviceman in view of amendment carried out under notification dated 29.01.2018 in Rule 5(1) of the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal State Non-Technical Services Rules 1972. As per the amendment ‘only the period of approved military service rendered after attaining the minimum age and qualification prescribed for appointment to the service concerned, by the candidate(s) appointed against reserved vacancy under the relevant rules, shall count towards fixation of pay in that service at the time of first civil appointment against reserved vacancy’. The Court held as under:- “10. With the issuance of aforesaid Notification dated 29.1.2018, whereby rule 5 of the Rules came to be amended, Ex-servicemen who though stood appointed against a civil post in the State of Himachal Pradesh, prior to issuance of aforesaid Notification, are being denied benefit of counting of military service rendered by them, before their appointment under the Ex-serviceman quota for the purpose of pay fixation on the ground of qualification and as such, petitioners herein are compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein to set aside impugned Notification and communication dated 29.1.2018 and 30.1.2018. (Annexures P-5 and P-6 of CWP No. 6443 of 2020). 12 ………... 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. 14-15 ……………. 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. 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 ex-servicemen attain minimum age and educational qualification eligibility criteria prescribed in the rules. 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 ex-servicemen 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. 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 rule-5 of 1972 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. …………………………………….. 23. Amendment carried out in sub-rule 1 of Rule 5 vide Notification dated 29.1.2018, otherwise does not affect rights of the petitioners, who are claiming benefit of counting of approved military service towards fixation of pay. Government of Himachal Pradesh with a view to bring 1972 Rules in harmony with judgment of this Court in V.K. Behal supra has amended aforesaid rules providing therein that the approved military service shall be counted only for the period, when such Ex-serviceman acquired the minimum age and educational qualification. Government of Himachal Pradesh with a view to bring 1972 Rules in harmony with judgment of this Court in V.K. Behal supra has amended aforesaid rules providing therein that the approved military service shall be counted only for the period, when such Ex-serviceman acquired the minimum age and educational qualification. However, this court is of the view that provision of grant of benefit of approved military service for fixation of pay was very much in 1972 Rules and the same has not been altered /amended even by the amendment carried out vide Notification dated 29.1.2018 and as such, this court has no hesitation to conclude that the Notification dated 29.1.2018 does not affect the right of the Ex-serviceman for counting of approved military service towards fixation of pay. 24. Leared Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that in terms of Notification dated 29.1.2018, ex-servicemen would be entitled to grant of benefit of approved military service towards fixation of pay prospectively from 29.1.2018 but such plea of him deserves outright rejection being devoid of merit. Service conditions of Ex-servicemen who joined civil employment are to be determined in terms of 1972 Rules, as it existed at the time ex-servicemen joined their services. When the exservicemen joined their services, they were very much entitled for grant of approved military service towards fixation of pay. It cannot be disputed that aforesaid right of availing benefit of approved military service towards fixation of pay was very much in the rule book, which otherwise never came to be tinkered/quashed and set aside by Division Bench of this court while delivering judgment in V.K. Behal supra. 25. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made herein above, we find merit in the writ petitions and accordingly the same are allowed and the respondents are directed to give benefit of approved military service to the ex-servicemen towards fixation of pay, from the time, they joined the civil employment, ignoring amendment carried out in provision of rule 5(1) of the rules, 1972 which otherwise can be said to have come into operation from the date of Notification dated 29.1.2018.” The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Babu Ram3 instituted against the aforesaid decision was dismissed on 25.10.2024 giving finality to the decision. Vs. Babu Ram3 instituted against the aforesaid decision was dismissed on 25.10.2024 giving finality to the decision. 4(iii) Petitioner was appointed as TMPA on the basis of criteria laid down in the Policy & the Rules against the quota reserved for Ex-servicemen (OBC) on 06.05.2017. Petitioner’s appointment, therefore, was even otherwise prior to the amendment notification dated 29.01.2018. He, therefore, in light of law laid down in Babu Ram , (supra) is entitled for the benefit of approved military service towards pay fixation in the civil employment. 4(iv) Learned counsel for the respondents contended that petitioner cannot get benefit of decision in Babu Ram , (supra) as his services were regularized as Conductor under the R&P Rules for the post of Conductor on 23.11.2020. That under the R&P Rules for the post of Conductor, 10+2 has been prescribed as minimum educational qualification for direct recruitment. The petitioner was recruited through direct recruitment but he was only matriculate, therefore, benefit of approved military service cannot be granted for fixing his pay. The above contention does not carry substance. Rules 7 & 10 of the R&P Rules for the post of Conductor being relevant are extracted hereinafter:- 7 Minimum education qualification for direct recruitment i. 10+2 pass from any Board of School education/University recognized by the Govt. of H.P. ii. Possess valid Conductor license. iii. Desirable qualification Knowledge of customs, manner and dialects of Himachal Pradesh and suitability for appointment in the peculiar condition for direct recruitment. 10 Method of recruitment, whether by direct recruitment or by promotion, deputation/transfer and the percentage of vacancies to be filled in by the various methods. (The vacancies occuring and proposed to be filled by direct recruitment shall be notified to Employment Exchanges/or other specified agencies as the case may 100% by appointment on contract basis from TMPA having three years service failing which by direct recruitment either regular or on contract basis as the case may be. Rule 7 stipulates 10+2 as minimum educational qualification required for direct recruitment. As per Rule 10 of the R&P Rules, the posts of Conductor are to be filled up 100% by appointment on contract basis from TMPA having three years service failing which by direct recruitment either regular or on contract basis as the case may be. Clause 7 of the R&P Rules only stipulates minimum educational qualification for direct recruitment as Conductor. Clause 7 of the R&P Rules only stipulates minimum educational qualification for direct recruitment as Conductor. Petitioner was not appointed as Conductor through direct recruitment. He was appointed as TMPA on contract basis on 06.05.2017. Petitioner’s appointment as such was under a separate & specific Policy as also separate set of Rules for recruitment of TMPA on contract basis. Under this Policy & the separate Rules, petitioner was required to possess matriculation qualification from recognized Board of School Eduction/University. Admittedly the petitioner possessed this qualification. The separate Rules also provide that TMPA would be entitled for regularization as Conductor after expiry of the prescribed period by the Government for regularization. Therefore, the qualification prescribed for direct recruitment as Conductor under the R&P Rules cannot be held against the petitioner for denying him the benefit of approved military service towards fixation of his pay scale. It is a fact that respondents have regularized service of petitioner as Conductor on completion of requisite years of contract service by him as TMPA Services of the petitioner were accordingly regularized. The decision in Babu Ram 2 is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. 4(v) Learned counsel for the respondent next invited attention to office communication dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure R-4), issued by the Principal Secretary (Transport) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which reads as under:- “I am directed to refer to your letter NO: HO: 9E-Pay- Fixation/2016-Reckongpeo,date 30-12-2023 on the subiect cited above and to say that the matter was taken up with Personnel Department who have advised as under :- Examined. It is clarified that under rule 5(1) of DAFP (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal State Non- Technical Services) Rules, 1972, the condition of acquiring minimum educational qualification was not imposed and become pre-requisite after notification date 29.01.2018, with the first amendment. It is well settled that the benefit of pay fixation on account of past military service accrues upon and ex-servicemen recruited against a reserved post only after regularization. Hence. the contractual Ex- servicemen engaged before 29.01.2018, but whose service have been regularized 29.01.2018, are governed by the amended rule are not under the Rule of 1972. Therefore, Himachal Road Transport Corporation is advised to examine & decide such issues accordingly. Hence. the contractual Ex- servicemen engaged before 29.01.2018, but whose service have been regularized 29.01.2018, are governed by the amended rule are not under the Rule of 1972. Therefore, Himachal Road Transport Corporation is advised to examine & decide such issues accordingly. You are therefore requested to take further necessary action in the matter accordingly under intimation to this department.” As per the aforesaid office communication, contractual ex-servicemen engaged before 29.01.2018, but whose service were been regularized after 29.01.2018, would be governed by the amended rules i.e. as amended under notification dated 29.01.2018. It is seen from the record that on 01.04.2021 (Annexure R-5), Personnel Department had clarified that ‘the matter of pay fixation of ex-servicemen pending for decision up-to 29.01.2018 be disposed of, allowing the benefit of counting of past service rendered in armed forces towards of pay fixation without enforcing the condition of minimum age and qualification and the settled position may not be unsettled’. Notification dated 29.01.2018 has already been interpreted in Babu Ram 2 that the benefit of approved military service to the ex-servicemen for the purpose of pay fixation is not dependent upon their possessing minimum qualification. Petitioner was even otherwise appointed in Civil Employment as TMPA (Contract) pursuant to a selection process on 06.05.2017. His appointment was much before the issuance of notification dated 29.01.2018. Petitioner was appointed against a post reserved for ex- serviceman (OBC). His prayer for fixation of his pay by giving him benefit of approved military service, therefore, is covered by decision in Babu Ram, (supra). Annexure R-4 will not come in the way of the petitioner from getting the benefit of approved military service towards fixation of pay. 5. In view of above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 03.10.2024 (Annexure P-5) and 12.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioner after giving him benefit of approved military service as was done by them at Annexure P-4 dated 16.11.2021. Consequential benefits be released to the petitioner within six weeks. Amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner on account of impugned re-fixed (reduced) pay scale be also released in his favour. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.