COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 3050/2001 Somraj Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Others …….Respondents Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3rd April, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Petitioner was initially appointed as a Survey Lekhpal on 4.10.1978 in the district Rampur. He worked there on the said post till 5.11.1986. Thereafter in pursuance of the order of District Magistrate, Rampur, the petitioner proceeded for training in Lekhpal Training School, Bijnor, where he successfully completed his training between 6.11.1986 to 23.6.1987. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 25.8.1987 treating him absent from 6.11.1986 i.e. from the date when the petitioner joined the training at Lekhpal Training School and on the same date i.e. on 25.8.1987, the petitioner was appointed as Lekhpal in district Rampur. But the benefit of the service rendered by the petitioner between 4.10.1978 to 5.11.1986 has not been extended to him, for which the petitioner submitted a representation, which was not decided. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, which was finally disposed of vide the order dated 2.11.2000 with the direction to decide the pending representation of the petitioner by a speaking order. 2. Pursuant to the direction of the Allahabad High Court, the representation of the petitioner dated 25.2.2000 was rejected by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar vide the impugned order dated 18.2.2001 which is contained as Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record. It is worth mentioning here that the petition is of the year 2001 but no counter affidavit has been filed till date. 4. It transpires from the record that before taking decision on the representation of the petitioner, Tehsildar, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar was asked to submit a detailed report about the service record of the petitioner. Tehsildar submitted his report vide his letter dated 6.1.2001 contained as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition. A perusal of this report reveals that the petitioner has worked as Survey Lekhpal between 4.10.1978 to 5.11.1986 and entry to this effect has also been made in his service book. Thereafter he was under training in Lekhpal Training School, Bijnor between 6.11.1986 to 23.6.1987. The said report further reveals that services of the petitioner was terminated on 25.8.1987 by the Record Officer treating the petitioner absent from 6.11.1986 to 23.8.1987, but the Teshildar has pointed out in his report the said termination order has not been signed by anyone in the service book of the petitioner. It is very strange that the petitioner has proceeded for training w.e.f. 6.11.1986 in compliance of the orders of the competent authority but his services were terminated treating him to be absent from the same date. 5. The Tehsildar in his above report, on the basis of the service record and relevant rules, recommended that the petitioner should be given the benefit of past service for the purpose of fixation of his pay. But it seems that the report of the Tehsildar which is based on service record of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration while rejecting the representation of the petitioner. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the services rendered by the petitioner between 4.10.1978 to 5.11.19896 and give the due benefit of the same for the purpose of fixation his pay and pension. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) Prabodh