IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 3873 of 2008 Decided on: 21.10.2010. Kamla Devi ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P.& others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 1 and 2. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): The petition has been filed with following prayers: “7(i) That the applicant prays that respondents may be directed to count the services of the applicant rendered in STNSD High School Baijnath as per his service record duly verified by the Director of Education H.P. And to issue revised orders fixing his pension and ordering payment of gratuity after counting his services rendered in the private school in the light of the judgment of this Hon'ble Tribunal, rendered in OA No. 368 of 1987 titled Diwakar Datt Sharma v/S state of H.P. And another decided on April, 7 1994. the State of H.P. Has not filed any SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against this decision and this decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal has become final and binding on the respondents to be implemented in all similar and identical cases. .....2..... (ii) To direct the respondents to take final decision in the representation of the applicant dated 21.3.1996 (Annexure A/8) within a specified time and to grant him reliefs aforesaid.” 2. It is the stand of the Government that the petitioner is not entitled to count services rendered to the Institution prior to the taking over, in terms of the policy regarding taking over. In view of the terms and conditions of taking over of the Institution, the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in OA No. 368 of 1987, which according to the petitioner, has been implemented, wherein the Tribunal has directed the Government to count the services rendered by the incumbent in the Institution. However, in the reply, it is stated that the terms and conditions of taking over of that Institution is different from the terms and conditions of taking over of the Institution, wherein the petitioner worked. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of conditions of taking over of the Institution wherein the petitioner also worked, she is entitled to count the services. If that being so, the petitioner may point out this aspect before the Government. 3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: In the event of the petitioner filing the representation pointing out her eligibility in terms of the terms and conditions of taking over of the Institution, within a period of one month .....3..... from today, the matter will be duly examined by the first respondent and appropriate orders in accordance with law and justice, with particular reference to the terms and conditions of taking over of the Institution shall be passed by the Government within a period of another two months. 4. With these observation, petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. ( Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (V.K. Sharma), Judge. October 21, 2010 (V/VT)