IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 805 of 2009 Date of decision: 22.07.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Bachittar Singh. .....Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & another. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. AG. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petitioner was working in the respondent- department as Panchayat Auditor. He was due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2007. However, vide Office Order dated 21.06.2007, Annexure P-1, he was granted extension up to 30.04.2008. Apparently it was done to enable him to complete the qualifying service of ten years for grant of pension. However, later on, vide another Office Order dated 02.01.2008, the extension in service was cancelled and he was retired from service on 31.12.2007. Even at that stage he was short of the qualifying service for grant of pension by 29 days. In a similar situation, one Shri Krishan Sharma, Panchayat Secretary, working in Rural 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... Development Department, who was given extension in service up to 30.04.2008, which was later on cancelled and he was retired from service on 31.12.2007 was again taken back in service w.e.f. 01.01.2008 to 30.04.2008, apparently to enable him to complete qualifying service for the grant of pension vide order dated 06.02.2008, Annexure P-3. The only difference in the case of the petitioner and the said Shri Krishan Sharma is that whereas the later (Shri Krishan Sharma) had actually worked during the period 01.01.2008 to 30.04.2008, the petitioner has already retired on 31.12.2007. Had he continued in service on the strength of extension earlier granted in his favour vide Office Order, Annexure P-1, he would also have completed the qualifying service for grant of pension. However, the extended tenure in his case was restricted only up to 31.10.2007. Thus he could not complete the requisite qualifying service which remained short by 29 days. 2. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of notional extension in service up to 31.01.2008 at par with the aforesaid Shri Krishan Sharma, Panchayat Secretary. This exercise shall be carried out within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner to the respondents/competent authority, after affording an opportunity of being heard, if so desired. However, it is made clear that notional extension in service shall not entitle the ...3... petitioner for actual wages for that period and the same shall be reckoned only for the purpose of pension. 3. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 22nd July, 2011 (virender)