LSR 2 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No.152 of 2006 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Secretariat Dehradun 2. Chief Veterinary Officer, Nainital 3. Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Kumaon Mandal Nainital … Appellants Versus Raju, Safai Nayak S/o Sri Munna Lal R/o Balmiki Basti Sukhatal, Mallital, Nainital … Respondent Dated:- 18th November, 2009 Coram: Hon. Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Per:- Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J. Heard Sri B. K. Gupta, the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants – State and Sri Sudhir Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent. The present Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 22.03.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge directing the respondents/State (now ‘appellants’ in Special Appeal) to continue the writ petitioner (now ‘Respondent’ in Special Appeal) in service with continuity of his previous service. Brief facts, which has been culled out is, that the writ petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper in the office of Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Nainital in the year 1973 and continued to work continuously till the year 1989. It is alleged that on account of his ill-health, the writ petitioner was made to resign under pressure, which was duly accepted by the department on the condition that he would be given pensionary benefits. It has been alleged that the pensionary benefit was not given and accordingly he filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge praying that he should be re-employed and/or given pensionary benefits. The counter affidavit revealed that the writ petitioner tendered his resignation voluntarily and that he was ineligible to be given pension because he has not rendered 20 years of service. The learned Single Judge issued an interim order directing the appellants to re-employ the writ petitioner in the event the work was available and, based on the interim order, the appellants reemployed the writ petitioner. Considering this aspect of the matter, the learned Single disposed of the writ petition directing that the writ petitioner will continue to work pursuant to the interim order and 3 that his previous service would be taken into consideration at the time when he retires. The State - appellants being aggrieved has filed the present appeal. The learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants submitted that pursuant to the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge a fresh appointment was given to the writ petitioner and, consequently, the direction of the learned Single Judge for counting his earlier service could not have been granted. The learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants further submitted that the writ petitioner had resigned in the year 1989 and was reemployed in the year 2005, i.e. after 16 years and, therefore, this period should not be taken into consideration. The writ petitioner has come out with a categorical case that he was pressurised in tendering his resignation. Without going into this aspect of the matter and considering the fact that during the pendency of the writ petition the State-appellants had reemployed the writ petitioner, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the direction that previous service of the writ petitioner would be taken into consideration. In our opinion, the direction of the learned Single Judge was passed in the interest of the writ petitioner, who was an illiterate person and the Court sympathetically considered his petition. Once the work was available with the department and an appointment order was issued, the Court, in larger interest, without going into the factual controversy directed the appellants – State to take into consideration his service which he had rendered earlier. This Court does not find any reason to interfere in such directions being issued by the learned Single Judge. The appeal fails and is dismissed. We, however, clarify that the period from 1989, when he gave resignation, till the date of his re-employment will not be taken into consideration while calculating the pensionary benefits, if any. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own cost. (Dharam Veer, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J.) Dated 18.11.2009 LSR