`IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 208 of 2011 Reserved on 29.6.2011 Decided on 6.07.2011 H.R.T.C and others ……..Appellants vs. Laskari Ram ……Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the appellants : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 30.11.2010, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No. 9288 of 2008, Laskari Ram vs. H.R.T.C and others, the appellants have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:- ”Petitioner was appointed as driver in the respondent- Corporation on 1st January, 1990. He was retired on medical grounds vide Annexure A-2, dated 23rd April, 1994. Thereafter he got treatment and was issued medical fitness certificate by the A.M.O., Shri Rattan Muni Jain Government Ayurvedic Hospital, District Hamirpur, H.P. on 23 rd September, 2002. Petitioner has made a representation to consider his case for re- employment after being declared medically fit vide 2 Annexure A- 3. However, till date no decision has been taken by the respondents on the representation made by him for his re-employment. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that in the intervening period his wife has been provided part-time employment. 2. Since the petitioner has been declared medically fit as per Annexure A-3, dated 23rd September, 2002, the petition is disposed of with a direction to second respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for re-employment in accordance with law and for that purpose a Medical Board shall be constituted by moving application to the Chief Medical Officer, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Shimla, if necessary. This be done within a period of one month after production of certified copy of the judgment. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.” 3. Admittedly, pursuant to the retirement of the respondent herein, who was the writ petitioner, on medical grounds, his wife was given employment on compassionate grounds in the respondent-Corporation, initially as a Class-IV employee on part time basis. She has since been regularized as such. Apparently, this fact was not disclosed in the writ petition. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that this fact was disclosed to him by the writ petitioner later on and as such was duly incorporated in the rejoinder. However, the fact remains that the writ petitioner after seeking retirement on medical grounds and obtaining employment on compassionate grounds for his wife and initially suppressing this fact approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of an original application (O.A), which on abolition of the said tribunal was transferred to this court and registered as CWP(T) No. 9288 of 2008, which ultimately was decided vide the aforesaid judgment dated 30.11.2010. Thus, he 3 managed to seek indulgence of this court in the nature of a direction to appellant No.2 (respondent No.2 in the writ petition) to consider his case for re-employment in accordance with law, after getting a Medical Board convened from the Chief Medical Officer, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Shimla, within one month from the date of production of certified copy of the judgment on the ground that after getting treatment he had been declared medically fit by the Ayurvedic Medical Officer, Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital, Distt. Hamirpur, H.P. on 23.9.2002. 4. However, the fact remains that once the writ petitioner got retirement on medical grounds and his wife was granted employment on compassionate grounds, he had no claim for re-employment even in the event of his having been declared medically fit. 5. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and consequently, the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2010, shall stand reversed. 6. While parting we may observe that it was submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that even after his retirement on medical grounds, he has not been paid retiral benefits. In reply to this, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the writ petitioner had a short service of about four years to his credit, thus he was not entitled for any gratuity and there was no pension scheme in the appellant- Corporation. However, he was entitled for payment of contributory provident fund, for which repeated communications were sent to him to come forward to get the payment of the same. The latest communication being as early as the year 1995, but he did not turn up. It being so, it is made clear that due and admissible amount of contributory 4 provident fund shall be paid to the writ petitioner within three months from today, failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall also be payable. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Sharma) Judge. July 6, 2011 (LSP)