IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 3630 of 2010 Reserved on: 4.8.2011. Date of Decision: 11 .8.2011 Gilam Dei …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others … Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate. For the Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. and 5. For the Respondent No.6: Mr. R.S.Gautam, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J 1. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents especially respondent No.4 in retaining respondent No.6 as Cook in Government Primary School, Dhanula, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba and discontinuing her services. 2. The admitted facts of the case are that respondent No.6 was appointed as Cook in GPS, Dhanula on 8.6.2003. The petitioner on the other hand was appointed as Assistant Cook in November, 2003. Respondent No.6 admittedly proceeded on 2 leave in October 2003 and continued to be on leave till September, 2004. She again rejoined her duties in October, 2004 and thereafter both the petitioner and respondent No.6 were working as Cooks in the school. The Government thereafter framed a policy and decided that in schools, in which there were less than 25 students, only one Cook would be engaged and the services of the second cook should be dispensed with. The Government also directed that the policy of last come and first go be followed. Respondent No.4 decided to retain the services of respondent No.6 on the ground that she had been engaged prior to the petitioner. 3. Shri Anup Rattan, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that while considering the length of service the period for which respondent No.6 was on leave should not be taken into consideration. According to him these workers are not entitled to any leave except 12 days leave and therefore, this period should be treated as a break in service. 4. I am not at all in agreement with the contention raised by Shri Anup Rattan, Advocate. According to the respondent-State, respondent No.6 was unwell and hence proceeded on leave. This fact was stated not only by her but also by her employer. Once the employer accepts the explanation of the employee that she was on leave, even if she is not paid wages for the period when she was ill, she cannot be denied continuity of service for considering her seniority. Therefore, I am of the considered view 3 that respondent No.6 is senior to the petitioner and hence, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. 11th August, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.