IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP.NO.16861 of 2007 DATE OF ORDER: 11.2.2008 Balbir Singh ....Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana & Others .....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. H.N. Khanduja, Advocate. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. JASBIR SINGH,J (ORAL) By filing this writ petition, petitioner has prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued to quash order dated 9.1.2007 (P.7) vide which his prayer to count past service i.e three years service, which he rendered in a private school was rejected. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner entered service of a private school in the year 1973. The management of the school was taken over by the State of Haryana on 9.9.1976. Terms and conditions of the taking over are produced on record as Annexure P.4. Clause (iii) of the terms and conditions reads thus: “The Government will not be responsible and will never take any such responsibilities or liability of the management.” Thereafter fresh employment was offered to the petitioner along with others vide order dated 29.6.1981 (P.5). Petitioner did not object to the same. In appointment letter dated 29.6.1981 (P.5), it was specifically stated that if terms and conditions of the appointment letter are not acceptable to the petitioner, he may intimate the officer concerned immediately. Petitioner continued in the Education Department of State of Haryana and retired on 30.4.2007. Pension was released in his favour. Thereafter, he made an application in the month of July, 2007 that the period-three years CWP.NO.16861 of 2007 #2# service, rendered by him with the private institution be counted for the purpose of pension. To press his claim, reliance was placed upon a judgment rendered in L.P.A. No.1346 of 1991, titled Prof. Dev Dutt Kaushal v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 21.10.1993 (P.8), wherein prayer of similar situated employee was allowed by this Court. At the time of arguments, it came to our notice that the above said judgment was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an appeal filed by the State of Punjab and the judgment is reported as J.T, 1985, Vol. 6, SC 225. We are astonished, as to how reliance can be placed upon a judgment, which was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 1995. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been shown to us by counsel for the petitioner himself on our asking. We deprecate the act and conduct of counsel for the petitioner, in trying to mislead this Court. Petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit of the past service rendered by him. Document Annexure P.4, which contain the terms and conditions of the 'taking over', clearly envisages that the Government shall not be responsible and will not take any responsibility or past liability of the management. It was further contemplated that only those employees will be kept in service, who are suitable for the post. Thereafter, on assessing suitability of the petitioner, fresh appointment letter was issued to him along with others, in the month of June, 1981. Reading of the conditions of appointment letter clearly indicates that the petitioner was offered fresh appointment and it was not stipulated that his past service would be counted towards any benefit. Terms and conditions of the appointment letter were accepted by the petitioner. He kept mum for a period of more than two decades and agitated the matter only after his retirement. Dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE February 11, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE