CWP(T) No. 8931 of 2008 01.09.2010 Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. There is no dispute that petitioner served the respondents for more than 23 years as a regular employee. He was initially appointed as a Conductor on daily wage basis in the year 1973 but was later on regularised in the year 1977. During the course of his engagement petitioner misconducted himself and as such disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and consequently penalty (retiring him from service of the Corporation compulsorily) was imposed on him. This aspect of the matter has not been assailed by the petitioner. Petitioner however is aggrieved of the fact that his terminal benefits including pension has not been disbursed to him in accordance with law. The same were denied in terms of the impugned order dated 26.4.2002 (Annexure A-2). 2. The petition is opposed on the ground that the petitioner’s services were not confirmed and as such he is not entitled to the retiral benefits. 3. Today Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel has placed on record letter dated 8.4.2010 wherein it has also been stated that the petitioner could not be confirmed as conductor “owing to series of penalties in operation and D P Pending against him”. 4. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel has placed on record copy of order dated 23.12.2008 passed by this Court in CWP No. 1467 of 2008, titled as Om Dutt versus State of H.P. and others wherein the -2- respondents themselves had accorded similar benefits to the petitioner therein. They were initially denied on the ground that in view of the disciplinary action initiated against Om Dutt (the petitioner) his services could not be confirmed on completion of the probation period. 5. The facts in Om Dutt (supra) and the present case are almost similar if not identical. In Om Dutt (supra) also the services were not confirmed on the completion of the probation period due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. Yet the respondents themselves took decision of taking his services as deemed to have been confirmed on the completion of the probation period. 6. In the instant case also petitioner had served for more than 23 years. The misconduct on the basis of which he was compulsorily retired pertains to the year 2000. Confirmation ought to have been made within a period of two years from the date of his regular appointment. 7. In these circumstances the stand taken by the respondents is untenable in law. Petitioner is held entitled to all retiral benefits including pension, in accordance with law. Respondents are directed to take all consequential action within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. It is also clarified that if the amount is not paid within the aforesaid period, then thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest -3- @ 9% on the amount due and admissible. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. September 1, 2010 (PK)