CWP (T) No. 9226/2008 15.03.2011 Present: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents Petitioner has prayed for the following relief: “i) That the respondents may be directed to hold the applicant in continuous service from his initial appointment since 20.1.99 with all consequential benefits. ii) That the respondents may be directed to pay the salary to the applicant w.e.f. 24.7.99 to 23.5.2000 and thereafter directions be given to the respondents to give him the arrears of basic pay and other allowances from 24.5.2000 to 23.5.2001 forthwith. iii) That the respondents may further be directed to fix the pay of the applicant taking into consideration his initial pay w.e.f. 24.7.99 and he may be paid all arrears along with penal interest. iv) That respondents may be directed that the applicant may also be given seniority and other consequential benefits.” 2. It is not in dispute that in terms of office order dated 24.7.1999 (Annexure A-1) petitioner’s services were dispensed with. He was on probation with the respondent-corporation and one month’s pay in lieu of the notice was paid to him. In terms of office order dated 19.5.2000 (Annexure A-3), petitioner was given fresh appointment, on contract basis for a period of one year subject to the following conditions:- “1. That he will not claim as a matter of right, the benefit of his past service including financial benefits and seniority etc. 2. That if he is found guilty by the MACT in causing death of two ladies and award compensation to the deceased, the same amount of compensation would be recovered from his salary as per rules. 3. That in case the charges so framed by the police are proved by the competent court, he would be liable for consequential action.” Petitioner is aggrieved of the same. 3. Noticeably petitioner has not assailed the order giving him fresh appointment. It was open for the petitioner to have not accepted the appointment on contract basis. It was only in the year 2003 that he challenged these conditions. There is nothing on record to show that in between the year 2000 and 2003, petitioner ever protested against the conditions imposed by the respondents. Noticeably petitioner was involved in a criminal case in which he stands acquitted. That apart, he misconducted himself and caused loss to public property. Respondents authorities discharged him but later on by taking a lenient view given him fresh appointment. In my considered view, he has been let off leniently. Consequently, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. March 15, 2011 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.