IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 5298 of 2008. Decided on: 09.09.2009. Dina Nath. … … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and Others. … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R. K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The petitioner is an ex-serviceman. He was considered for appointment to the post of police Constable in the year 1987. The Superintendent of Police, Shimla was requested to issue appointment letter to the petitioner and similarly situate persons within a period of ten days of the receipt of nominations. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner was offered appointment on 8th April, 1988. The petitioner has put in 9 years 6 months and 23 days civil employment. The State Government to mitigate the hardships to those persons who have not completed 10 years of service had issued instructions vide Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Annexure A-2 on 31st July, 1995. The petitioner made representations to Hon’ble the Chief Minister and also to the Director General of Police vide Annexures A-3 and A-4. However, the representations made by the petitioner were not considered. The fact of the matter is that if the petitioner had been offered appointment within 10 days of the receipt of nomination as per Annexure A-1, he would have completed 10 years of service. It is only due to the inaction on part of the respondents that the delay occurred in appointment of the petitioner. He was offered appointment in April, 1988. The grievance of the petitioner could also be redressed if the instructions issued vide Annexure A-2 dated 31st July, 1995 had been implemented in letter and spirit by extending his service by 2 months and 7 days to enable him to get the pensionary benefits. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, it is evident that the petitioner has been deprived of his right to get pension due to inaction on part of the respondents, initially by not offering the appointment within the period of 10 days and thereafter by not considering his representation for extension of service on the basis of instructions issued on 31st July, 1995. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The delay of 2 months and 7 days is condoned to enable the petitioner to get pensionary benefits. The respondents are directed to release the retiral benefits, i.e. pension, gratuity etc. within a period of six weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. September 09, 2009 (sck)