B.R.ARORA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was working as a Hawaldar in the Indian Army. He retired from the defence service with effect from 30 -9 -1977. At the time of his retirement, his basic pay in the Army was Rs. 333/ - per month and he was getting over -all Rs. 495/ - per month as his salary. After his retirement, the petitioner was sanctioned the pension @ Rs. 133/ - per month and he was given appointment as a Watchman with the Food Corporation of India on 11.7.1978. He joined the service as Watchman with the Food Corporation of India on 12.7.78. He sought voluntary retirement in the year 1992. At the time of initial appointment with the Food Corporation of India, he was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 210 -4 -250 -5 -290/ - alongwith other allowances. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that he was working as Hawaldar in the Indian Army where from he retired on 30.9.77, and the post of Hawaldar is equivalent to the post of Security Officer under the respondent and, therefore, he should have been given re -employment by the respondent on the post of Security Officer, which is equivalent to the post of Hawaldar in the Indian Army. Giving appointment to him at a lower level has resulted in reduction of his pay and his prestige. The case of the respondent, on the other hand, is that the petitioner was offered the post of Watchman by the respondent and he accepted the same in the year 1978, and now after a lapse of about fourteen years of service, when he retired, he cannot be allowed to raise this grievance. The further contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that as per Chapter III, Para 1 -B, the petitioner, at the time of re -employment, was entitled for fixation of his pay at the minimum stage in which as individual can be employed, which was granted to the petitioner and which he accepted at the time of entering in the service. Now, after a delay of about fourteen years, he cannot be allowed to re -open the case and the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this count alone.
(2.) I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. The persons serving in the Defence Services retire relatively at a younger age in order to keep the youthful profile of the Forces due to arduous nature of their duties in hazardous and inhospitable terrain and therefore, they require help and assistance for resettlement. They, also, require a second career as they are young and active and their responsibilities and obligations are at the peak when they are retired. Having given their best part of their life for the safety and security of the motherland it becomes a national obligation to provide necessary facilities for their resettlement. Keeping in mind the National Obligation to provide the facilities for resettlement of defence personnel, the Central Government made 'the Ex -Serviceman (Re -employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979. According to these Rules, certain reservations have been made to provide appointment to the Ex -servicemen for their re -employment in the Central Government's Establishments and Central Government Public Undertakings and Nationalised Banks. The petitioner, being an Ex -Serviceman, was provided appointment as a Watchman in the Food Corporation of India -a Central Government Public Sector Undertaking. He was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 210 -4 -250 -290/ -. These Rules do not make any provision that the appointment should be given on the post equivalent to the post on which he was already serving. The only protection that has been given to the Ex -Serviceman is regarding the fixation of his pay scale. The Rules provide that the initial pay, on re -employment, should be fixed at the minimum stage of the scale of pay for the post on which an individual is employed. Where it is felt that the fixation of the initial pay of the re -employed, at the minimum of the prescribed pay scale will cause under hardship to him then the pay may be fixed at a higher stage by allowing one increment for each complete year of service which the officer/official rendered before his retirement on a post not lower than that on which he is re -employed, and according to these Rules, the basic principle for fixing of pay is that the pay granted to the official plus pension and the pension cum gratuity should not be less than the pay drawn by the official at the time of his retirement. A criteria has, also, been laid down in the Rules for determination of the hardship and granting advance increment on the re -employed post. According to the Guidelines the pay of the pensioner Ex -serviceman should be fixed in the minimum of the pay scale and the question of granting him advanced increments arises only if there is some hardship felt by the Ex -serviceman. Hardship is seen from the point whether the minimum pay on the re -employed post plus full pension plus pension equivalent to the gratuity is less than the pay drawn by him at the time of retirement then the ex -serviceman may be given advance increments. But if there is no hardship then no advance increment can be granted to him. It is not the case of the petitioner that the pay granted to him plus pension and pension equivalent to gratuity was less than the last pay drawn by him at the time of his retirement. The only grievance raised by the petitioner is that he was not given the post equivalent to the post of Hawaldar. The Rules protect the rights of the Ex -serviceman only to this extent that the fixation of the pay of the re -employed Ex -serviceman including pension and pension cum gratuity should not be less than the pay actually drawn by him at the time of his retirement from the Defence Service. No grievance has been made by the petitioner on this count.
(3.) IN this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.;