--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP No. 110 of 2009 Decided on 27th July, 2011. Tarsem Lal …… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P & others. …….Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Petitioners : Sh. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. A.K Bansal, Addl. Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 5. Surinder Singh, J (oral). The petitioner by means of this petition has sought the following reliefs: “(a) That by way of writ of mandamus the office order dated 22 August, 2008 may kindly be set aside to the extent, depriving the petitioner of his service benefits. (b) That the writ of mandamus may kindly be passed directing the respondents to grant service pension to the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 9.11.2001 w.e.f 9.11.2001 with all arrears upto date and penal interest @ 12% P.A and further he may be held entitled to pension in accordance with law.” Whether reporters of the Local news papers are allowed to see the judgement? - 2 - 2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner was appointed on 16.4.1990 as Conductor in the respondent-Corporation on regular basis. It is alleged that he was charge sheeted for major penalty, he was held guilty and ultimately compulsory retired on 9.11.2001. His Departmental appeal was dismissed and second appeal was found not maintainable, thus rejected, consequently vide Annexure P-5 dated 22.8.2008 only terminal gratuity pension of ` 30,015/- was sanctioned in his favour without any other retiral benefits and no pension was granted to him as he was not confirmed. 3. From the date of his appointment the petitioner remained in service for a period of about 12 years. 4. As per the recruitment and promotion Rules for the post of Conductor in the respondent- Corporation, the age for direct recruitment is 18 to 35 years. The posts are to be filled by direct recruitment. Para II of the said Rules inter alia lays down certain conditions of service. On fresh appointment to the post in service, the incumbent shall remain on probation for a period of two years - 3 - in the first instance. If the work and conduct of any member during his period of probation, in the opinion of appointing authority, is not satisfactory, the said authority can dispense with his service, but on completion of period of such Probation the appointing authority may confirm such member to his appointment or if his work and conduct has, in the opinion appointing authority, not been satisfactory, could dispense with his service. Provided further that total period of probation including extension, if any, shall not exceed three years in any circumstances. 5. The respondents did not confirm the petitioner till he was compulsory retired from the service. If his work and conduct was found un- satisfactory, his services could have been dispensed with by the appointing authority within the maximum period, so long as he remained under probation but however, the respondent No.2 could not have kept the confirmation of the petitioner in Limbo. Thus, in the circumstances aforesaid, petitioner is deemed to have been confirmed on completion of statutory period as three years under the Rules. Therefore, the benefit of pension could not be denied to him on the ground that he was not confirmed. Hence, - 4 - order dated 22.8.2008; aforesaid is wrong and illegal which is quashed and set aside. Consequently, petition is allowed and respondent No.2 is hereby directed to grant service pension to the petitioner, if he is otherwise found eligible, within a period of 4 months, failing it shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date it fell due. (Surinder Singh ) Judge July 27, 2011 (priti)