IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) 13963 of 2008 Decided on: May 19, 2011 B.P. Sharma ..Petitioner. Versus State of HP and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner, who is an Advocate by profession, was appointed as Presiding Officer of Sales Tax Tribunal by the Governor of Himachal Pradesh, in accordance with Section 3-A of Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968. The Notification said that appointment was to be effective from the date the petitioner took over the charge of the post and terms and conditions were to be those, as notified vide the Notification, dated 7.12.1999, copy Annexure R-1. Petitioner was appointed for a period of 5 years, but his appointment was cut short on completion of Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É two years, by an ordinance. He was granted pension, in accordance with Notification dated 18.6.2001, copy Annexure P-2, by which Rules, Annexure R-1, were amended. Amended Rules provided for payment of pension to the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. Pension was to be payable only to those Presiding Officer, who had served at least for two years and the quantum of pension was to be worked out by multiplying the amount of `700 per annum by the number of years of service. 2. Petitioner was sanctioned pension, in accordance with the aforesaid notification of amended Rules, copy Annexure P-2. In the present petition, petitioner has claimed gratuity, leave encashment and medical reimbursement, as are payable to government servants. 3. Respondents, in their reply, have taken the plea that the Rules, under which the petitioner was appointed, do not provide for any gratuity or leave, what to speak of leave encashment. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. Rules, copy Annexure R-1, notified vide Notification dated 7.12.1999, as amended vide Notification dated 18.2.2001, copy Annexure P-2, provide for payment of pension only, to the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. They do not provide for any gratuity nor do they have any provision of any leave to the Presiding Officer. If the É3É Presiding Officer is not entitled to any leave, then the question of leave encashment does not arise. So, the claim of the petitioner for grant of gratuity and leave encashment is without merit. Hence, the same is rejected. 6. As regards the claim for medical reimbursement, Rule 9 of Rules, Annexure R-1, provides that the Presiding Officer shall be governed by the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944, or any other Rules applicable from time to time to the employees of Himachal Pradesh Government, as the case may be. That means, the petitioner, while in service, was entitled to facilities for medical treatment, as are provided in the aforesaid Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, or any other Rules, applicable to the employees of Himachal Pradesh Government. Hence, respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to reimburse the medical expenses, incurred by the petitioner, when he was serving as Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, in accordance with the aforesaid rules. Petition stands disposed of. May 19, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.