IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 4424/2011 Decided on:24.10.2011 _____________________________________________ Deepa Kansal. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was appointed on contract basis as Lecturer (Economics) on 23.10.1997 in Government Senior Secondary School, Taklech. She proceeded on medical leave on 31.12.2002. She was offered appointment on 8.9.2006. She joined her duties in Government Senior Secondary School, Nogli on 11.9.2006. 2. Mr. Ramakant Sharma has strenuously argued that respondent-State ought to have regularized the services of the petitioner by counting the period from 23.10.1997. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has remained absent with effect from 31.12.2002 till 11.9.2006 and this period, as per Annexure P-5, has been treated as absent from duty. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on contract basis on 23.10.1997. The appointment of the petitioner was for a period stipulated in the contract. The persons appointed on contract are entitled to leave, only which is specifically mentioned in the agreement. Even as per Annexure P-6, only one day casual leave for a completed month of service is admissible. No other leave of any kind is admissible. Thus, the period between 31.12.2002 to 11.9.2006 could not be regularized under any circumstances. The appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in Government Senior Secondary School, Nogli is fresh appointment for all intents and purposes. The period of continuous service now be counted with effect from 11.9.2006 and not from 23.10.1997, as argued by Mr. Ramakant Sharma. The petitioner, as per Annexure P-10, was required to complete 8 years as on 31.3.2010. 3 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 24.10.2011 *awasthi*