IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.(T) No. : 2805 of 2008. Reserved on: 04.03.2010. Decided on: 8.3.2010. _________________________________________________________ Sushil Chand Rattan. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. K.S. Banyal, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Rural Publicity Worker on 12.10.1953 in the Public Relations Department, Punjab. He was promoted as Rural Publicity Organizer on 16th December, 1961. He was further promoted to the post of Field Publicity Assistant on 1st September, 1965. He was allocated to the State of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. 1.11.1966. He superannuated on 31.3.1982. However, the services he has rendered from 12.10.1953 to 18.12.1961 were not taken into 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. consideration towards qualifying service for granting pensionary benefits to him. He approached the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 46 of 1995 for the redressal of his grievance. The same was directed to be treated as representation by the Tribunal and it stood rejected by the competent authority on 24th April, 1995. Mr. K.S. Banyal, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 12.10.1953 to 18.12.1961 is required to be counted towards qualifying service for granting pensionary benefits to his client. He then argued that the case of the petitioner has been rejected arbitrarily on 24.04.1995. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was not appointed on regular basis. Thus, the period w.e.f. 12.10.1953 to 18.12.1961 cannot be counted for qualifying service. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. Petitioner was appointed as a Rural Publicity Worker on 12.10.1953 (Annexure A-2). The text of the appointment letter reads thus: “You are hereby offered the post of a Rural Publicity Worker at an honorarium of Rs.75/- per month plus Rs.4/8/- P.M. as bicycle allowance. 2. You will be on probation for three months. 3. The post is purely temporary and the appointment may be terminated by Government or their Officers having proper authority:- (i) Without notice, if after enquiry there is a proof of insubordination, intemperance, embezzlement or other serious misconduct and (ii) With one calendar month’s notice in writing for any other reason without cause being necessarily assigned and in case you resign you will be required to give one month’s notice in advance or refund one month’s honorarium in lieu thereof. If you accept the post, please report for duty at the District Public Relations Office Dharamshala within ten days of the receipt of this appointment letter. No travelling allowance will be allowed for the journey undertaken for joining the post.” He was promoted as Rural Publicity Organizer at Rs.150/- P.M. fixed plus other allowances admissible to him on 16.12.1961 vide Annexure A-III. Initially, the State of Pubjab has taken a decision that all the Rural Publicity Workers will cease to be Government servants w.e.f. 1st October, 1954. However, this decision was reversed on 14th May, 1960, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the Rural Publicity Workers employed by the Department were whole-time Government servants and as such, they were governed by Government Servants Conduct Rules and other instructions and orders issued by the Government from time to time. The text of letter dated 14th May, 1960 reads thus: “Rural Publicity Workers employed by the Department are whole-time Government servants and as such are governed by Government Servants Conduct Rules and other instructions and orders issued by Government from time to time. They cannot, as such, remain members of any political party or organization, contest elections or take part in them. They also cannot act as Panches or Serpanches. These instructions should please be brought to the notice of all the Rural Publicity Workers. It may also be impressed upon them once again that they should immediately resign from the membership of any party or organization or office to which they are elected. The names of those who do not abide by the above instructions may be reported to this office for necessary action.” The District Public Relations Officers may kindly have effective supervision over the activities of Rural Publicity Workers in their areas for stepping up field activities and keep this office informed in this respect. The receipt of this circular may please be acknowledged.” A bare perusal of Annexure A-2 read in conjunction with Annexure A-III and A-V make it amply clear that the appointment of the petitioner was on regular basis as Rural Publicity Worker and he was treated as whole-time Government servant and his service conditions were regulated under the Conduct Rules. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexures R- 2/2 and R-2/3. In communication Annexure R-2/3, the letter dated 14th May, 1960 has not been referred at all. This communication also does not take care of the appointment letter issued to the petitioner on 12.10.1953. The appointment of the petitioner as per Annexure A-2 was on regular basis. He was put on probation for three months. The person is put on probation only if his appointment is regular. In other words, it is not contingent. The stand taken by the respondent-State that the appointment of the petitioner was on contingent basis is contrary to the overwhelming material placed on record by the petitioner. Even in Annexure A-III, the expression used is Promotion from the post of Rural Publicity Worker. This could be done only if the petitioner’s appointment was regular. The representation made by the petitioner on the basis of the order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 46 of 1995 has been rejected on wrong premises, without taking into consideration the appointment letter of the petitioner, his promotion order and Annexure A-V. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-1, dated 24th April, 1995 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner by counting his entire service he has rendered w.e.f. 12.10.1953 to 31.3.1982 as qualifying service for the release of pensionary benefits. The needful be done within a period of six weeks from today. The amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum. The petitioner is held entitled to costs, which are quantified at Rs.3,000/-. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge March 8, 2010. bhupender