IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6182 of 2008. Date of Decision: 9.8.2010 Madan Lal Rattan …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Mr.Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) The petitioner sought voluntary retirement in the year 1977 from service. Instead of giving him voluntary retirement he was permitted to resign from service. In 1993, 16 years after the so called illegal action of making him resign from service, the petitioner filed an O.A. in the Tribunal which directed that the petition be treated as a representation and be decided within three months from the date of the said order. Thereafter, an order was passed by the Commissioner- cum-Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh taking a sympathetic view of the matter and the services rendered by the petitioner in the District Board were allowed to be counted for calculation of his pension. 2 Not satisfied, the petitioner filed another application being O.A. No.1561 of 1995 before the Tribunal. When this application came up for hearing neither the applicant nor his counsel was present. The said application was allowed in the following terms: “4. In view of the above, the application is allowed and the relief sought for by the applicant in relation to counting of services rendered by him in the employment of Defunct District Board is allowed. The respondents are further directed to re-fix the pension of the applicant in light of observations made above.” It would be pertinent to mention that while allowing the application, no order for grant of interest was made and only re- fixation of pension was allowed. It is settled law that once interest is not granted in the order then the prayer shall be deemed to have been rejected. In case the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order he should have challenged the same. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a contempt petition being Contempt Petition No.27 of 1999. In this contempt petition also he did not pray that interest should be paid to him. His only grievance was that he had done his post-graduation also and his pay be revised by taking into consideration his higher qualification. This contempt petition was dismissed on the ground that no contempt was made out. It is true that in the final portion of the order it was observed that in case any grievance of the petitioner is left he may file fresh application. 3 The petitioner himself approached the Tribunal after 16 years after his retirement. The Tribunal directed that a sympathetic view be taken. He was granted pension but no order was made for payment of interest. Now he wants that the respondent be directed to pay interest. This claim is totally unjustified and the petition is rejected. No order as to costs. August 9, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) PV Judge.