In a significant relief for ex-servicemen seeking government jobs, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that a former Army officer cannot be denied the benefit of his entire military service while fixing pay in a civilian post, even if service rules were amended later.
The court made it clear that rights that had already crystallised at the time of appointment cannot be taken away by a subsequent rule change. The judgment was delivered by Justice Sandeep Sharma while deciding a petition filed by Sanjeev Kumar, an ex-serviceman appointed as a Junior Clerk in the Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Bank.
Read also:-Supreme Court settles Tiger Global tax dispute, backs treaty protection in ₹15,000+ crore Flipkart
Background of the Case
Sanjeev Kumar served in the Indian Armed Forces for more than 15 years. In 2017, he applied for the post of Junior Clerk under the ex-servicemen quota and was issued an appointment letter on September 27, 2017.
At that time, he was still serving in the Army and sought an extension to join after retirement. The bank granted him time, and he finally joined on February 26, 2018, shortly after retiring from service.
Trouble began when the bank fixed his pay by counting only a part of his military service. The authorities relied on a government notification dated January 29, 2018, which amended service rules. The new rule said that only military service rendered after acquiring the minimum age and qualification for the civil post would count for pay fixation.
Kumar challenged this decision, arguing that since he was appointed before the amendment, the old rule should apply to him.
Read also:- Supreme Court clears insolvency against Takshashila Elegna developer, rejects housing society's bid
What the Petitioner Argued
Kumar told the court that his appointment letter came before the 2018 amendment, and therefore, his rights were already settled under the earlier rules.
His counsel said the government could not apply the amended rule retrospectively. “The benefit of approved military service was part of the service conditions when the petitioner was selected. That right cannot be taken away later,” the argument went.
The petitioner relied on earlier High Court judgments which had consistently held that service conditions of ex-servicemen must be governed by the rules that existed at the time of appointment.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Refuses Bail to Prayag Group Directors in ₹2,800 Crore PMLA Case, Cites Gravity
Stand of the State and the Bank
The State and the Cooperative Bank defended their action by saying that Kumar joined duty after the 2018 notification came into force. They argued that the amended rule should apply because it was in force on the date he actually joined service.
They also claimed that since Kumar acquired the required educational qualification only in 2014, his earlier Army service could not be counted for pay purposes.
Court’s Observations
Justice Sandeep Sharma disagreed with the State’s position and said the real issue was not the date of joining, but the date of appointment.
“The moment the appointment letter was issued, the petitioner’s right to claim benefits under the existing rules stood crystallised,” the court observed.
The judge relied heavily on earlier rulings, especially the Division Bench decision in Babu Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh, where the court had held that amendments made in 2018 could not take away benefits already available to ex-servicemen appointed earlier.
The bench noted that Rule 5 of the 1972 Rules had always allowed counting of approved military service for pay fixation. While courts had earlier restricted its use for fixing seniority, the financial benefit had never been taken away.
“The action of denying pay benefits to ex-servicemen on the basis of the amended rule is arbitrary,” the court said, adding that such changes cannot operate retrospectively unless the law clearly says so.
Read also:- Delhi HC Issues Notice on Rabri Devi's Challenge to IRCTC Scam Charges, Seeks CBI Reply Before Jan
Why This Judgment Matters
The ruling strengthens the legal position that service benefits once earned cannot be diluted later through administrative changes. For thousands of ex-servicemen across Himachal Pradesh and other states with similar rules, the judgment brings clarity and reassurance.
It also sends a clear message to government departments and public sector institutions that delayed joining due to service obligations cannot be used to deny lawful benefits.
As the bench put it, “An ex-serviceman should not be penalised for completing his duty to the nation.”
The Court’s Decision
Allowing Sanjeev Kumar’s petition, the High Court quashed the bank’s order rejecting his claim and directed the authorities to count his entire approved military service for fixing his pay.
Read also:- Supreme Court Settles Waiting List Dispute, Clears RPSC Appeals in Three Recruitment Cases
The court ordered that the 2018 amendment should not be applied in his case and that his pay must be refixed under the old rules.
With this, the petition was disposed of, bringing a long-standing service dispute to a close in favour of the ex-serviceman.
Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Others
Case No.: CWP No. 947 of 2023
Case Type: Service Law – Pay Fixation Dispute
Decision Date: December 30, 2025
