IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 4308 of 2009. Date of Decision : May 23, 2011 Pawan Thakur Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for respondents-State. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Mr. Dibender Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that he does not press prayer clause (ii) in view of the directions issued by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-T No. 2145 of 2008, titled as Mandeep Kumar and others versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 21.2.2011, copy of which is taken on record. 2. Having perused the record, in effect the petitioner’s grievance is similar to that of the petitioners in Mandeep Kumar Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (supra) wherein after due consideration the following order was passed:- “… A perusal of the initial orders dated December, 2001 clearly shows that the petitioners were selected after following proper procedure and following the due process of selection to the post of Gram Panchayat and Vikas Adhikari. Thereafter, they were given an option of choosing their district cadre. Thereafter on July, 2002 office orders were issued appointing the petitioners as Gram Panchayat and Vikas Adhikari but placing them on training for a period of six months. No doubt, this period of six months was later enlarged to two years but this training cannot nullify the order of appointment which had already been passed. Training was a step-in-aid after the appointment had been made. A perusal of the rules relating to the Gram Panchayat and Vikas Adhikari clearly shows that the said rules do not envisage any pre appointment training. The rules clearly lays down that 100% appointment to the said post shall be made by direct recruitment. This method has admittedly been followed. Under the garb of imparting training to the petitioners they cannot be told that their appointment commenced after training had been completed. They may have been kept on training and a stipend paid during the training period but the fact is that the duly constituted authority i.e. H.P. Subordinate Service Selection Board had selected the petitioners and thereafter the appointing authority had issued letters of appointment and directed that they be sent on training. Therefore, their service will deem to have started from the date when they were issued these letters of appointment prior to their training. 3 5. In view of the above discussion, these writ petitions are disposed of and the petitioners are directed to be treated as employees appointed prior to 15th May, 2003 with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs.” 3. In Mandeep Kumar (supra) the Court was dealing with a case where the petitioners, were duly selected on 21.12.2001; their choice of districts was obtained; letters for appointment were issued in July, 2002; and they were sent for training as Gram Panchayat and Vikas Adhikari initially for a period of six months which was extended to two years. The benefit of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 was not accorded to them for the reason that their actual appointment was construed to be after the repeal of the 1972 Rules. 4. The contention of the State was rejected and the above mentioned directions were issued. 5. In the instant case also petitioner was selected in terms of the very same selection process which was adopted for the petitioners in Mandeep Kumar (supra). His selection is also in terms of letter dated 21.12.2001 (Annexure P-3) and appointment in terms of order issued in July, 2002 (Annexure P-4). His choice of district was also sought and he was also sent for training. Consequently petitioner being similarly situated, the directions issued in Mandeep Kumar (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to the instant case also. All 4 consequential actions shall be taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. 6. In view of the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 23, 2011 (PK)