1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 4492 of 2008. Decided on 15.11.2010. Dr. Urmil Bansal, ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioners : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C. J. (Oral): The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: I) That the impugned Annexure A-8, dated the 21st November, 1995 and Annexure A-4, dated 6.3.96 may be quashed and set aside; II) That the respondents may be directed to retire the applicant w.e.f. 17.10.1995; III) That the respondents may be directed to process the applicant's pension papers and to release the pension to the applicant w.e.f. 17.10.1995.” 2. It is seen from the reply that the petitioner had initially been removed from service since she was not turning up for duty. That was challenged before the Administrate Tribunal in O.A. No. 201 of 1988 and the Tribunal on 7.7.1995 passed the following order: (I) The impugned order dated April 12, 1988 published in the Tribune on April 29, 1988 Annexure -19 qua the applicant is quashed and set aside. 2 (II)After reinstating the applicant the respondents are free to take appropriate action against her for any mis-conduct on her part in accordance with law and in pursuant to the public notice dated March 12, 1988 published in the Tribune, Annexure P-17, if so advised. (III)In the facts and circumstances of the case the period of absence from April 29, 1988 till the date of her actual joining shall be treated as leave of the kind due; and (IV)The respondents are further directed to re-instate the applicant immediately.” 3. It is seen from the reply that the petitioner was thereafter re-instated in service. While so, she made an application for voluntary retirement. That was rejected by impugned orders Annexures A-3 and A-4. Her application for voluntary retirement clarifying the position is still pending. It is further submitted that no departmental action in any case has been taken against the petitioner. Therefore, there has to be a finality to this fiasco. It is seen that Annexure A-5, request of the petitioner for processing her pension papers is pending before the respondents. Since the disciplinary proceedings originally initiated against the petitioner have been set aside by the Tribunal and the petitioner had thereafter been reinstated in service, there has to be a proper, legal and valid termination of the relationship of the employee and the employer. 4. In the above circumstances, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take a final decision in accordance with law on the request made by the petitioner, if not already taken, within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by 3 the petitioner. The benefits, if any, to which the petitioner is found eligible, shall be disbursed to her within another two months. 5. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice November 15, 2010 (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (hl) Judge