IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 5460 of 2008. Decided on: 27th October, 2010. D.C. Thakur. .….. Petitioner. Versus Dr. Y.S. Parmar University. …. .. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. R.S. Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner has challenged Annexures A-4 and A-7. As per the said orders, the University and the Government, respectively, have clarified the position that the petitioner is not entitled to three months pay in lieu of notice when he was dis- engaged from the service in the University. According to the petitioner, after retirement from the Government, the University had engaged him as Dean, College of Forestry. But it is seen from the appointment order that such engagement is only on ad hoc basis. Annexure A-3 very clearly states that the appointment is for a further period of six months and that the ad hoc appointment is liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. On a reference made to Annexure A-3, it was stated that extension is for a further period of six months or till regular appointment is made, whichever is earlier. There is no case for the petitioner that after dis-engaging him, another person has been appointed on ad hoc basis. According to the petitioner, the dis-engagement is only on account of Annexure A-5, order passed by the Government 2 whereby the Government issued the instruction that those who are re-employed or on extension after the superannuation are to be terminated immediately after giving them three months pay. The re-employment/extension pertains only to the extension/re- employment of the person concerned serving in the same establishment and not in any other establishment on ad hoc basis. The offer of appointment made in the appointment order shows very clearly that the same is an ad hoc appointment and it is liable to be terminated at any time. 2. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that the ad hoc appointee like the petitioner is entitled to three months’ notice before dis-engagement since the termination is only in terms of the conditions in the appointment order. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 27th October, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh), (tr) Judge.