2025:HHC:18378 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 5847 of 2020 Reserved on: 29.5.2025 Date of decision: 17 . 6 . 2025 Atul Tomar. …Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Cooperative Marketing and Consumer Federation Ltd. …Respondent. Corum Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner. Mr.Sumit Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.Vijay Singh, Advocate. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Petitioner had approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 7620 of 2018 against rejection of his representation vide Office Order/communication dated 13.7.2018 (Annexure A-4), whereby prayer of the petitioner, to treat his appointment on regular basis from the initial date of appointment, i.e. 1.11.2010, has been declined. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:18378 CWPOA No. 5847 of 2020 2. On abolition of H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, petition was transmitted to this High Court and registered as present CWPOA No. 5847 of 2020. 3. Respondent-Federation had advertised post of Accountant through H.P. Public Subordinate Service Commission (Now Subordinate Service Selection Board), Hamirpur, after decision taken by its Board of Directors, approved by the Registrar Co-operative Societies vide letter dated 10.8.2009. 4. Petitioner participated in the process initiated for recruitment to the post of Accountant and being a successful candidate, he was appointed as Accountant on contract basis on fixed monthly contractual amount, vide Office Order dated 1.11.2010 (Annexure A-1). 5. On completion of tenure of 5 years, vide Office Order dated 23.6.2016 (Annexure A-2), services of the petitioner on contractual basis were regularized in the Pay Band plus Grade Pay of 10,300- ₹ 34,800+4400/- with initial start of 14,700/- per month. ₹ 6. Admittedly, at the time of initiation of recruitment, Recruitment and Promotion Rules provided as under:- “Recruitment and Retirement 3.1 Recruitment (a) Recruitment/appointment to various posts under the Federation shall be made in the manner as under:- i) By direct recruitment. 3 2025:HHC:18378 CWPOA No. 5847 of 2020 ii) By promotion of existing personal from the feeder category. By change of cadre from one post to another. iv) By deputation from Govt. or any other institution as specified against each post. v) Representation to Scheduled Caste/tribes and Ex-Serviceman will be made as per instructions of the H.P. Govt. from time to time.” 7. There was no provision for making appointment on contract basis. These Rules were amended and after approval by the State Government vide Notification dated 27.9.2012, amendment was made applicable from 1.10.2012. Amended Rules read as under:- “Recruitment and Retirement 3.1 Recruitment (a) Recruitment/appointment to various posts under the Federation shall be made in the manner as under:- i) By direct recruitment. ii) By promotion of existing personal from the feeder category. By change of cadre from one post to another. iv) By deputation from Govt. or any other institution as specified against each post. v) Representation to Scheduled Caste/tribes, OBC, Handicap persons and Ex-Serviceman will be made as per instructions of the H.P. Govt. from time to time. vi) or by direct recruitment on contract basis as per time to time H.P. Govt. policy prevalent/applicable at the time of such recruitments.” 8. Petitioner represented to the Federation by submitting representation dated 27.4.2018 (Annexure A-5) and requested to make his appointment on regular basis from the initial date of recruitment i.e. 1.11.2010. 4 2025:HHC:18378 CWPOA No. 5847 of 2020 9. The aforesaid representation was rejected by the Managing Director of the respondent-Federation vide communication dated 13.7.2018 (Annexure A-4) on the ground that permission to fill up the post of Accountant on contractual basis was granted by the Registrar Co-operative Societies vide Office Letter dated 29.8.2009 and thereafter on the basis of recommendations of Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Service Commission, Hamirpur, petitioner was appointed on contractual basis for 8 years as per prevailing Policy of the Government dated 7.5.2010, the petitioner accepted the offer of appointment on the condition contained in the appointment letter and joined the post and subsequently as per Policy dated 7.5.2015, on completion of contractual period of 5 years, services of the petitioner were regularized. It has been further stated that as per Federation Service Rules, approved by the State Government vide Notification dated 27.9.2012, appointment to the post of Accountant is to be done 100% by direct recruitment on contract basis as per Policy of the H.P. Government issued from time to time, applicable at the time of such recruitment. 10. In reply to the petition, advertisement of the post through Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Commission, appointment of the petitioner being successful candidate in the said selection process vide order dated 1.11.2010 on contractual basis and regularization after 5 years vide order dated 23.6.2016, have been admitted. 5 2025:HHC:18378 CWPOA No. 5847 of 2020 11. It is further stand of the Federation that Service Rules of the Federation provide for recruitment of temporary workers/temporary employee for specific period and thus petitioner was rightly appointed on contractual basis which was accepted by the petitioner and thus petitioner was governed and bound by the terms and conditions of the contract only. To substantiate this plea, proposal of amending the Recruitment and Promotion Rules by the Federation sent by the Registrar Cooperative Society to Managing Director of respondent Federation vide communication dated 9.9.1010 (Annexure R-1) has been referred, wherein Government through Registrar had proposed insertion of Rule 1.2 of H.P. State Cooperative Marketing and Consumers Federation Limited Employees Recruitment, Promotion and certain Conditions of Service Rules, as under:- “1.2. (i) These rules shall apply to all the whole time employees of the Federation, but shall not apply to: (a) The persons in casual employment or engaged on daily basis or appointed o work charge basis; (b) A person whose terms and conditions have been settled by or under an agreement or contract. Such person shall be governed by the terms and conditions of the said agreement or contract.” 12. It is stand of the Federation that once Government has decided to make appointment on contract basis at first instance and had directed the Federation to carry out the amendment in Rules vide communication dated 9.9.2010 (Annexure R-1), appointment of petitioner 6 2025:HHC:18378 CWPOA No. 5847 of 2020 vide Office Order dated 1.11.2010 (Annexure A-1) was legal and valid and thus plea of the petitioner to consider him appointed on regular basis from the initial date of appointment, is not tenable. 13. With the rejoinder, petitioner has placed on record certain documents received under Right to Information Act alongwith requisition sent to the H.P. Subordinate Services Commission, Hamirpur through Registrar alongwith Recruitment and Promotion Rules existing at relevant time. 14. It has been submitted that at the time of submission of this requisition in August, 2009, there was no provision in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, permitting the Federation to make appointment on contract basis. At that time, neither Rule 3.1 was amended nor there was insertion of Rule 1.2 in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, as proposed and directed by the Registrar. 15. It has been submitted that amendment in Rule 3.1 for making direct recruitment on contract basis was made applicable w.e.f. 1.10.2012 and therefore, prior to the said date, Federation was not competent to make appointment on contract, but was bound to offer appointment including to the post of Accountant on regular basis only. 16. To substantiate the plea of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 2.5.2012, 7 2025:HHC:18378 CWPOA No. 5847 of 2020 passed in CWP No. 7602 of 2010, titled as Om Parkash Vs. State of H.P. & others and connected matters and judgment dated 9.11.2023 passed in CWP No. 2343 of 2020, titled as Vikram Singh Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and other connected matters and judgment dated 2.1.2023 passed in CWP No. 8046 of 2021, titled as Manoj Kumar Vs. State of H.P. 17. To substantiate stand of the Federation, learned counsel for the Federation has placed reliance upon judgment of the Supreme Court passed in State of Orissa Etc. Vs. Arun Kumar Patnaik ad others, (1976) 3 SCC 579; Rajendra Prasad Gupta Vs. Prakash Chandra Mishra & others, (2011) 2 SCC 705; Ashok Ram Parhad & others Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, (2023) 18 SCC 768; and Mahadeo & others Vs. Sovan Devi & others, 2023(10) SCC 807. 18. In Arun Kumar Patnaik’s case, the question considered by the Court was that can an appointment made on a temporary basis in compliance of relevant Rules be regularized retrospectively. The question before the Supreme Court was altogether different to the question involved in present case as in present case, admittedly, at the time of making appointment of the petitioner on contract basis, there was no provision existing in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, to make contract appointment and, therefore, appointment of the petitioner made on 8 2025:HHC:18378 CWPOA No. 5847 of 2020 temporary basis, i.e. on contract basis, was not in consonance with the provisions of Recruitment and Promotion Rules, and though, selection process adopted by respondent-Federation was in consonance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, but the nature of appointment made was nowhere prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Therefore, this judgment is not applicable in present case. 19. In Rajendra Prasad Gupta’s case, reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the observations made by Allahabad High Court, approved by the Supreme Court, which read as under:- “Courts are not to act upon the principle that every procedure is to be taken as prohibited unless it is expressly provided for by the Code, but on the converse principle that every procedure is to be understood as permissible till it is shown to be prohibited by the law. As a matter of general principle prohibition cannot be presumed.” 20. Article 309 of the Constitution of India inhibits the power of the State or its functionaries to make appointment dehors Recruitment and Promotion Rules, meaning thereby each and every appointment in the public service must be in consonance with Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Service Commissions are also bound to follow the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and for that reason only alongwith requisition from the Department, copy of Recruitment and Promotion Rules is appended. Where there is no provision for making appointment under Recruitment and Promotion Rules on contract basis, the employer/Department/State, 9 2025:HHC:18378 CWPOA No. 5847 of 2020 Functionaries of the State cannot import such nature of appointment on the basis of instructions issued by the Government, but not incorporated in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules by amending the Rules. Therefore, in service matters there is general principle of prohibition against making appointments dehors Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Thus this judgment is also of no help to the respondent-Federation. 21. In Mahadeo’s case, petitioner was claiming right on the basis of inter-departmental communication which was not a communication to the persons, and thus it was observed that it is well settled that inter- departmental communications are part of process of consideration to reach an appropriate decision and thus cannot be relied upon or made basis to claim any right. Whereas in present case petitioner is not claiming any right on the basis of inter-departmental letter, but is agitating his cause on the ground that there was no provision existing in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, empowering the respondent-Federation or Registrar or Government to make appointment on contract basis dehors the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and thus this judgment is also not applicable in present case. 22. In Ashok Ram Parhad’s case, it was observed that in service jurisprudence, the service rules are liable to prevail and there can be Government resolutions being in consonance with or expounding the rules, 10 2025:HHC:18378 CWPOA No. 5847 of 2020 not in conflict with the same. This principle, in present case, instead of helping the respondent-Federation, is helpful to the petitioner’s case. In present case, temporary appointment offered to the petitioner was not in consonance with the Rules and in absence of any amendment in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, Service Rules are liable to prevail and thus for want of provisions for making appointment on contract basis at the time of initiation of selection process and even at the time of offering appointment to the petitioner, appointment of the petitioner has to be considered on regular basis from the date of initial appointment. 23. In Manoj Kumar’s case appointments of the petitioners, made on contract basis were directed to be deemed to have been made on regular basis instead of contract basis from dates of their respective appointments and they were held entitled for actual consequential benefits. The following paras related to impact and effectiveness of the Government instructions with reference to existing Recruitment and Promotion Rules are relevant:- “14. While offering the appointment to applicants on contract basis, the stand of the department was that the present policy of the government was to offer appointment only on contract basis, whereas policy decision, as reflected in the letter dated 12.12.2003, was not implemented by the respondent-Department. It is apt to reproduce the text of the letter, which reads as under: “I am directed to say that it has been decided by the Government that the mode of recruitment by way of "contract recruitment" may 11 2025:HHC:18378 CWPOA No. 5847 of 2020 also be prescribed in addition to other mode of recruitment in all the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. It is therefore, requested that all existing Recruitment & Promotion Rules where the mode of direct recruitment of the post has been prescribed the same may be amended. As such provision of Col. No. 10 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules be prescribed in the following manner:- "Col. No. 1: By direct recruitment or on contract basis" Since the matter has already been approved by the Councils of Ministers it is therefore, requested to amend the Recruitment and Promotion Rules accordingly without referring the matter to the Cabinet.” 15. … …. … 16 …. …. …. 17. No doubt, the Government had decided to introduce “contract recruitment”, but the same was only by way of an additional mode of recruitment to the regular mode of recruitment as is evident from the letter dated 12.12.2003 (supra). These instructions cannot have the effect of amending the statutory R&P Rules as it is more than settled that the policy decision/administrative/executive instructions cannot amend or modify much less overrule the statutory R&P Rules. 18. A Division Bench of this Court in its judgment, authored by one of us (Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan), rendered in Satish Jamwal vs. State of HP, in 2016 (2) SLR 66 = 2016(1) Him.LR 149, had an occasion to consider the similar proposition in paras 5 and 6 thereof, which read as under:- “5. Mr. R.K.Gautam, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants has primarily raised three contentions: (i) that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules are contrary to the executive instructions issued by the Government; (ii) that the amendment is liable to be struck down as it affects the chances of promotion of the appellants and: (iii) that the amendment deserves to be struck down as it is not only illegal, arbitrary but is against the basic principles of service 12 2025:HHC:18378 CWPOA No. 5847 of 2020 law. 6. Insofar as the first contention regarding the rules not being in tune with the executive instructions is concerned, suffice it to say that such argument proceeds on erroneous assumptions because it is the executive instructions that have to be in tune with the statutory rules and not vice-versa. This aspect of the matter has already been considered in detail by this Bench in case titled Priyanka Gautam and others vs. State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 354 of 2014 decided on 31st May, 2014, wherein it was held: “13. It is settled proposition of law that executive instructions cannot overrule or override the statutory Rules. Therefore, in case there is a conflict between the executive instructions and the rules made under Article 309, the rules made under Article 309 will prevail and in case there is conflict between the rules framed under Article 309 and the law made by the legislature will prevail. It is further trite that administrative instructions or orders can only be issued in matters of which the Rules made under Article 309 are silent, therefore, administrative instructions can only supplant the Rules but cannot supplement the same. Even a policy decision taken by the Government cannot have the force of rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Needless to state that Article 162 whereby the Government is competent to issue administrative instructions/orders and Article 309 operate in different area. In exercising the powers under Article 162, the Government cannot ignore the Rules framed under Article 309. Thus, any appointment or regularisation of an appointment made in contravention of the rules made under Article 309 shall be void. It is equally settled law that the rules framed under Article 309 cannot be amended or modified by an administrative order or instruction even by way of adding to the provisions of the statutory rule, unless there is a gap in the rule which required to be fill up. Therefore, what essentially follows is that the Government cannot amend or supersede the statutory Rules by administrative instructions and it is only when the Rules are silent on any particular point can the Government fill up the gaps and supplant 13 2025:HHC:18378 CWPOA No. 5847 of 2020 the Rules or the law by issuing instructions that too not inconsistent with the Rules. Thus, an administrative instruction cannot abridge or run counter to statutory provision or Rule.” 24. In CWP No. 1811 of 2008, titled as Dev Raj and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another alongwith connected matters, decided on 14.11.2011, considering various judgment passed by the Supreme Court, this High Court has observed and held as under:- “18 The Apex Court in P.Mohanan Pillai vs. State of Kerala and others (2007) 9 SCC 497 held as follows:- “9. Why such a decision had been taken after the publication of the result of the written examination and after calling 36 candidates for interview is not known. Why the Company intended to enlarge the zone of consideration from 1: 3 to 1: 4 has also not been disclosed. Why the cut-off mark was also lowered remained a mystery. 10. It may be that in a given situation, a decision of the State may be changed, but therefor good and sufficient reasons must be assigned. The Company failed to do so. The decision taken in this behalf smacks of arbitrariness. It prejudiced the candidates like the appellant. 11. It is now well-settled that ordinarily rules which were prevailing at the time, when the vacancies arose would be adhered to. The qualification must be fixed at that time. The eligibility criteria as also the procedures as were prevailing on the date of vacancy should ordinarily be followed.” 19. The Apex Court in Arjun Singh Rathore and others vs. B.N.Chaturvedi and others (2007) 11 SCC 605 held that the vacancies occurring prior to the promulgation of the new Rules have to be filled in according to the old rules even though the interviews were held after the promulgation and notification of the new Rules. 14 2025:HHC:18378 CWPOA No. 5847 of 2020 20. In Mohd. Raisul Islam and others vs. Gokul Mohan Hazarika and others (2010) 7 SCC 560 the Apex Court dealing with similar questions held as follows:- “37. There can be no dispute that as a matter of policy the Government may take a conscious decision not to fill up vacancies for justifiable reasons, but at the same time, having started a process of selection under the unamended Rules, it cannot take the stand that it still was entitled not to make appointments of persons from amongst the candidates selected in terms of the process initiated under the old Rules. In fact, in the instant case, the recommendation made by the APSC was submitted to the Government on 22nd June, 1986, before the amended Rules came into operation on 21st July, 1986 whereby the quota system was discarded. In such a situation, in our view, the decision in K. Ramulu's case cannot be applied to the facts of this case. 38. We are unable to agree with Mr. Hansaria that the High Court had committed an error in relying on the unamended Rules since the law has been well settled that the process of selection commenced on the basis of the Rules then in existence would continue under the said Rules, even though the Rules may have been amended in the meantime. Accordingly, the seniority of members of the service would, no doubt, be governed under Rule 19, but the selection process has to be completed under Rule 4 in order to attract the provisions of Rule 19. The vacancies for which the advertisement had been published in 1984 were directed to be filled up by the High Court on the basis of the unamended Rule 4 which provided for quota between promotees and direct recruits and, accordingly, placed 45 of the direct recruits immediately below the first 45 promotees out of the list of 129 promotees in keeping with the said quota system for the year 1986. 39. We agree with the view taken by the High Court which has been reiterated by Mr. Goswami in keeping with the well- established principle that once a process of selection is started on the basis of the existing Rules of recruitment, the said Rules will 15 2025:HHC:18378 CWPOA No. 5847 of 2020 continue to govern the selection process, notwithstanding any amendment which may have been effected to the said Rules in the meantime.” 21. In State of Bihar and others vs. Mithilesh Kumar (2010) 13 SCC 467 the Apex Court held as follows:- “19. Both the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench rightly held that the change in the norms of recruitment could be applied prospectively and could not affect those who had been selected for being recommended for appointment after following the norms as were in place at the time when the selection process was commenced. The Respondent had been selected for recommendation to be appointed as Assistant Instructor in accordance with the existing norms. Before he could be appointed or even considered for appointment, the norms of recruitment were altered to the prejudice of the Respondent. The question is whether those altered norms will apply to the Respondent. 20. The decisions which have been cited on behalf of the Respondent have clearly explained the law with regard to the applicability of the Rules which are amended and/or altered during the selection process. They all say in one voice that the norms or Rules as existing on the date when the process of selection begins will control such selection and any alteration to such norms would not affect the continuing process, unless specifically the same were given retrospective effect.” 22. In fact the matter actually stands squarely covered by a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Parveen Kumar and others vs. State of H.P. and others, 2011(1) Him.L.R.298 wherein the learned Single Judge held that the Rules as applicable on the date when the process was started would be applicable and the petitioners were entitled to regular appointment on the basis of the said Rules. 23. There can be no manner of doubt that in normal course it is the Rules which are in existence when the selection process starts i.e. advertisement issued, will be applicable and the appointments have to be governed by these Rules. No doubt selection by itself does not give an 16 2025:HHC:18378 CWPOA No. 5847 of 2020 indefeasible right to the selected candidates to be appointed. As pointed out by the Apex Court in a number of decisions that the State may for various reasons take a policy decision not to fill up the posts and unless it is shown that the policy is arbitrary or discriminatory the Court would not normally interfere in such policy decision. However, it is for the Government to show that it has taken such a conscious decision. 24. In the present case, the advertisement process started in the year 2002 and the only reason that appointments were not made was that a change in Government took place and some doubts were raised with regard to the fairness and validity of the selection procedure. The candidates were not at fault. They legitimately expected that they would be appointed in the year 2002 or early 2003. To their ill-luck the Government changed and the whole selection process was put under scrutiny. Even after inquiries, none of the selections has been found to be illegal. 25. At the time when the selection process was initiated and selection made the Government had not even thought of making contractual appointments. All appointments under Government are expected to be made as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and if the Rules do not permit, the Government cannot make contractual appointments. The decision to make direct recruitment on contractual basis was taken at a later stage. The argument of Shri Vivek Thakur, learned Addl.A.G. that when the Government has the power to appoint it also has the power to appoint on contractual basis cannot be accepted. Government appointments are made in accordance with the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. When such Rules are framed the Government is expected to act and make appointments in accordance with the Rules. If the Rules do not permit the Government to make appointments on contract basis they must be made on regular basis.” 25. Alongwith CWP No. 1811 of 2008, CWP No. 6893 of 2010, titled as Manju Bala Vs. State of H.P. was also allowed. State had 17 2025:HHC:18378 CWPOA No. 5847 of 2020 preferred LPA No. 237 of 2012 against the judgment passed in CWP No. 6893 of 2010, which was decided on 30.5.2015. 26. SLP (C) No. 1171 of 2017 filed by the State against judgment passed in LPA No. 237 of 2012, was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 24.3.2017 with observation that no ground to interfere with impugned order was found, but modification with respect to entitlement of arrears of financial benefits. 27. LPA No. 420 of 2012 preferred by the State against the judgment passed in CWP No. 1811 of 2008, titled Dev Raj and Another Vs. State of H.P. was disposed of in terms of judgment passed in LPA No. 237 of 2012 decided on 30.5.2015, as modified by the Supreme Court in SLP (c) No. 1171 of 2017. 28. In LPA No. 21 of 2013, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Ravinder Kumar, referring judgment passed in CWP No. 1811 of 2008, Dev Raj Vs. State of H.P., it has been observed that services of the petitioners were required to be taken over in terms of Recruitment and Promotion Rules, which were in existence on the date of taking over of the College i.e. 6.2.2007, as on that date Recruitment and Promotion Rules did not provide for contractual appointment, but only provide for regular recruitment and clause providing appointment on contract basis was inserted by amendment of Rules on 20.9.2010, subsequent to taking over of services, 18 2025:HHC:18378 CWPOA No. 5847 of 2020 and, therefore, petitioners were held entitled for regular appointment as amendment of Rules cannot be retrospectively applied to the petitioners. 29. In Vikram Singh’s case, Division Bench of this Court, referring decision in LPA No. 21 of 2013, State of H.P. Vs. Ravinder Kumar, has observed that petitioners were entitled to claim appointment on regular basis, who were appointed on contract basis, w.e.f. their initial date of appointment as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules existing at relevant point of time, because recruitment had been made in accordance with Recruitment and Promotion Rules and after duly advertising the post. 30. The judgment in Vikram Singh’s case was assailed in the Supreme Court by filing SLP(C) No. 5806 of 2024, which has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. 31. In present case recruitment to the post of Accountant was made by respondent-Federation, following the procedure prescribed in Recruitment and Promotion Rules, as per prescribed eligibility and through the prescribed agency i.e. Services Selection Commission after duly advertising the post. Therefore, as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules, as existing on date i.e. at the time of initiation of recruitment process and making appointment of the petitioner, petitioner is entitled for appointment on regular basis from his initial date of appointment. 19 2025:HHC:18378 CWPOA No. 5847 of 2020 32. In view of above, plea of respondent-Federation is rejected and rejection of claim of petitioner vide communication dated 13.7.2018 is set aside and, therefore, petitioner shall be deemed to be appointed on regular basis from the initial date of appointment. 33. As the petitioner represented to the Authorities on 27.4.2018, for the first time, therefore, petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits including pay and seniority from due date. But he shall be entitled for monitory benefits on actual basis from period of 3 years prior to submitting his representation dated 27.4.2018 and financial benefits beyond three years from the representation shall be on notional basis only. 31. Due and admissible arrears to the petitioner shall be paid on or before 31.12.2025, failing which petitioner shall also be entitled for interest on the arrears from the due date till final realization thereof at the rate of 6% per annum, however, other service benefits shall be ensured to be extended to the petitioner on or before 31.8.2025. The petition stands allowed in aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. (Ranjan Sharma), Judge. 17th June, 2025 (Keshav)