W.P. No.16689/2006(s) 15.12.2011 Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt.Adv. for the respondents. Petitioner was working in Shyam Sunder Agrawal College, Sihora. Along with petitioner one Shri D. C. Jain was also working in the same college. The College in question was taken over by the State Government in the year 1993. After taking over of the College it seems that service rendered by Shri D. C. Jain in the private college is not counted and therefore, Shri D. C. Jain approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. No.13442/2003. Vide order dated 3.2.2004 this Court directed that period of service rendered by Shri D. C. Jain in private college be counted. When nothing was done Shri D. C. Jain filed a contempt application and on the basis of contempt application services of Shri D. C. Jain has been counted. Petitioner also claims similar benefit and approached this Court by filed W.P. No.10282/2004 and vide Annexure P/9 on 4.3.2005 respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner and take steps. However, the claim of the petitioner is considered and rejected vide Annexure P/ 1 on 25.3.2006 and therefore, petitioner is before this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties it is seen that even though in the case of Shri D. C. Jain who was similarly situated like the petitioner, the benefit of counting past service is granted and the same is denied to the petitioner and for the said purpose two reasons are given, firstly because there is a delay in claiming the benefit and secondly, because a contempt case is pending the benefit is granted to Shri D. C. Jain. This justification of the respondents for denying benefit to the petitioner cannot be accepted. When service of an employee similarly situated whose services rendered in the private institute is counted, there is no question of denying the said benefit. As regards the objection that there is a delay of 10 years in raising the claim, there is no delay for the simple reason after the benefit is granted to Shri D. C. Jain cause accrued to the petitioner and when the State Government itself issued a Circular vide Annexure P/5, petitioner approached the department and it was only after the High Court interfered into the matter that the claim was rejected. Accordingly it is a case where the contention of the respondents that there is delay in raising the claim, cannot be accepted. That apart, counting of service is a continuous cause which is available to the petitioner so long as he is in service and cannot be time barred. Accordingly, impugned order dated 25.3.2006 is quashed and respondents are directed to count the service of the petitioner rendered in the private institute for the purpose of granting him all benefit as has been granted to Shri D. C. Jain. With the aforesaid, this petition stands allowed and disposed of. c.c. as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) J U D G E mrs. mishra