IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 10112 of 2008. Date of decision: January 1, 2010. Tota Ram …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. L.N.Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). CMP(T) No.444/09. The application filed by the petitioner for taking on record Annexure A-1 service book of petitioner from 15.1.1963 to 10.7.1968 and copy of service book Annexure B-1 from 1.3.1971 to 5.5.1982 is allowed. CWP(T) No. 10112 of 2008. 2. The petitioner in the petition has prayed for quashing of Annexure A-2 dated 3.7.1968, Annexure A-7 dated 6.4.1982, Annexure A-11 dated 14.12.1989, Annexure A-14 dated 22.11.1996 and Annexure A-18 dated 2.11.2002. The petitioner has also prayed that he may be declared to be in continuous service of the respondents w.e.f. 1982 onwards with all consequential benefits including seniority, arrears of salary etc. alongwith interest at the rate Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… of 18% per annum. The petitioner has also submitted that he is entitled to retiral benefits including pension in view of total service rendered by him w.e.f. 1963 onwards 3. The further case of petitioner is that in pursuance to appointment letter dated 15.1.1963 Annexure A-1 he had joined as Mate-cum- General Assistant in the Community Development Block Indora, District Kangra. He was promoted to the post of General Mechanic vide office order dated 15.7.1966. On the reorganization of Punjab State in 1966, the petitioner was allocated to State of Himachal Pradesh. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 10.7.1968 vide Annexure A-2 dated 3.7.1968. The petitioner made various representations and ultimately he was appointed w.e.f. 14.12.1971 as Black Smith at Common Facility Workshop, Dhaliara. The services of the petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 5.5.1982 vide office order dated 6.4.1982 Annexure A-7. The petitioner made representation, but no relief was granted to the petitioner and he filed CWP No. 229 of 1985, which was decided on 21.3.1996. It has been submitted that during the pendency of writ petition, the petitioner was offered the appointment as Supervisor in Panchayat Samiti Workshop at Dhaliara, but his services were terminated on 31.12.1989 vide Annexure A-11. The petitioner made representation, which was rejected on 22.11.1996. It appears, the petitioner made another representation and decision on that representation was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 2.11.2002 Annexure A-18. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present petition. …3… 4. The respondents have contested the petition and have taken several preliminary objections. It has been admitted that petitioner was appointed as Mate-cum-General Assistant on 15.1.1963 by the Joint Director, Village and Cottage Industries, Punjab at Indora Block purely on temporary basis and his services were terminated on 10.7.1968. Thereafter, the petitioner had served with respondent No. 3 for eleven years and on 6.4.1982 vide Annexure A-7 his services were again terminated. The petitioner filed CWP No. 229 of 1985, which was decided on 21.3.1996. The High Court in its interim order dated 8.10.1985 directed the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners of that writ petition on sympathetic grounds. In these circumstances, respondent No. 3 had again reengaged the petitioner for about two years and his services were terminated on 31.12.1989 vide Annexure A-11. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. It is clear that petitioner had served in different spells from 1963 to 1968 with Punjab Government and Himachal Government and thereafter from 1971 to 1982 with Panchayat Samiti Pragpur. The petitioner had served for two years during the pendency of earlier writ petition. In CWP No. 229 of 1985, it has been observed that services of the petitioner were terminated by giving him notice under Section 25F of the Act, it cannot be held that termination is illegal. In the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of various Annexures, noticed above. The petitioner, as per his affidavit has given his age 67 years in May 2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not shown any rule, provision how the services of the …4… petitioner for the purpose of retiral benefits w.e.f. 1963 to 1968, 1971 to 1982 and for two years during the pendency of the writ petition can be counted for retiral benefits, more particularly, when the Division Bench on 21.3.1996 has clearly observed that the services of the petitioner were terminated by giving notice under Section 25 of the Act and it cannot be held that his termination is illegal. 6. The petitioner was appointed by the Punjab Government initially on 15.1.1963 and under the Punjab Reorganization Act, he was allocated to State of Himachal Pradesh and his services were terminated in the year 1968. The petitioner was engaged during the year 1971 by Panchayat Samiti, Pragpur and he continued up to 1982. There was a gap of three years in between these two spells and under different employers even if State of Himachal Pradesh is considered to be the successor of State of Punjab for the purpose of employment of petitioner. The service of two years during the pendency of the writ petition was rendered by the petitioner under the court’s order but that too was terminated. In view of the facts, which have come on record, the services of the petitioner from 1963 to 1968 and from 1971 to 1982 and of two years under the court order referred above cannot be counted for the purpose of retiral benefits. 7. No other point was urged. 8. There is no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. January 1, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.