IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No.5688 of 2008 Date of Decision: 21st May, 2010 Prithvi Chand Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the petitioner: Mr.Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.R.M.Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) 1. According to the petitioner, on 12.6.1957 he was appointed as a teacher in Gandhi Janta High School, Thathal, District Una, H.P.. Undoubtedly the said school being privately managed was taken over by the State Government on 24.6.1969. In terms of order dated 20.9.1969 petitioner’s services were also taken over with effect from the said date. Office Order (Annexure PA) clarified that the post which was temporary was likely to continue. The petitioner continued to be in the employment of the State and retired on 31.7.1986. It is his grievance that retiral benefits have been wrongly disbursed to him by not taking into account the period of service rendered by him w.e.f. 12.6.1957 upto 26.9.1969. Hence, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “In view of the facts mentioned in para-6 above the application prays for the following reliefs:- i) That the respondents may be directed to count the services rendered by the applicant in privately managed Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 Government recognized and aided school w.e.f. 12.6.1957 to 26.9.1969 towards his pension and other retiral benefits. ii) The pension, gratuity, computation be ordered to be re-affixed after granting the benefit of privately managed Govt. recognized and aided school towards retiral benefit and the arrears be ordered to be released forthwith alongwith interest at the rate of 12% P.A. iii) The respondents may be burdened with costs throughout. iv) That the entire record of the case may kindly be called for and examined. 2. In the return, the fact that the petitioner was actually employed with the management of the school prior to 1969 has been disputed by the State. 3. The Apex Court in State of Orissa vs. N.N.Swamy, AIR 1977 S.C. 1237, has held as under:- “When a fairly well-recognised institution, as in this case, run for more than a century, is completely taken over by the Government for management, it is not merely taking over the land and buildings, tables and chairs. It has to tackle at the same time, a human problem, that is to say, the fate of the teachers and the staff serving in that institution. The institution, with which we are concerned was taken over, by consent, as a going educational concern and it goes without saying that it must be administered on sound lines having regard to quality, efficiency and progress in all respects. It is understandable that the employees had to join the new service under the Government for the first time, and so could be, in that sense, fresh entrants. But to say that the teaching experience of Readers in the private institution is completely effaced to the extent that they will not be even eligible, on the plea of absence of teaching experience in Government service, for consideration of appointment as Readers is a seriously girm issue.” 3 4. In almost similar circumstances, the High Court of Madras in The T.N.Govt. officials Union vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, SLR 1986(1) Mad.58, has also held that private teaching experience of a teacher employed by a private management, prior to the taking over of the management of the School by the State should be considered for granting service benefits. 5. The High Court of Orissa in N.N.Swamy vs. State, AIR 1974 Orissa 186, has also taken the similar view. 6. Hence, it cannot be disputed that the services, if any, rendered by the petitioner prior to 24.9.1969 have to be taken into account while granting service benefits. Except for an endorsement made by Headmaster on the letter dated 22.10.1996 (Annexure PB) written by the petitioner there is nothing on record to prove the fact that petitioner was appointed w.e.f. 17.6.1957. The authenticity of this letter cannot be gone into in these proceedings. It is, however, equally true that prior to 24.9.1969 petitioner was in employment as J.B.T. (teacher), which fact is evident from the office order dated 20.9.1969 (Annexure PA). 7. In these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to approach the respondents and furnish material to establish that he was employed as a teacher with the privately managed school w.e.f. 17.6.1957. The petitioner shall do the needful within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The respondents are directed to consider such material and pass an order and accord all service benefits, in accordance with law. The needful be done within a period of six months. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of. 21st May, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.