IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 1009 of 2008. Decided on: 09.03.2010. __________________________________________________________ Joginder Singh. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Petitioner was appointed as Male Staff Nurse on 8th May, 1998. He is an Ex-serviceman. He made a representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 17th December, 2006 with a request that he may be permitted to complete ten years of service to enable him to earn pension. The request made by the petitioner was favourably considered and he was granted extension of 9 months in service with effect from 1.10.2007 to 30th June, 2008 vide letter dated 25.9.2007. Respondents- State issued a Notification on 31st December, 2007 whereby a decision was taken to terminate the extension granted to the Government servants. In sequel to Notification dated 31st December, 2007, services of the petitioner were terminated on 12.2.2008. He filed Original 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Application before the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal bearing No.193 of 2008. The learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal directed the original application to be treated as representation to the Principal Secretary (Health) and he was directed to decide the same within a period of four weeks after hearing the petitioner in person. The representation was rejected by the Principal Secretary (Health) vide order dated 2nd April, 2008 Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the action of the respondent-State to terminate the extension granted to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unjustifiable, thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the decision of the State Government. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that the petitioner is an Ex-serviceman and was appointed as Male Staff Nurse on 8th May, 1998. A conscious decision has been taken by the State to grant extension to the petitioner by another ten months on 25.9.2007. The purpose of granting extension to the petitioner by ten months was to enable him to complete minimum service of ten years to get pension. However, the State Government in a most arbitrary manner has decided to terminate the services of the petitioner and similarly situate persons, who were granted extension. It is true that whether to grant extension or not, decision has to be taken by the employer. In this case the decision has already been taken, but without there being any compelling public interest, the decision was reversed. There is nothing - 3 - on record to suggest, even remotely, what was the public interest to terminate the services of petitioner without permitting him to complete minimum ten years service to enable him to get pension. The representation has been decided by the Principal Secretary (Health) on 2nd April, 2008 without a speaking order. The grounds taken by the petitioner in the original application and arguments made by him in person have not been dealt with by the Principal Secretary (Health). The petitioner has not been dealt with in a just and fair manner. The Principal Secretary (Health) was required to pass well reasoned order while dealing with the representation made by the petitioner. Consequently, the decision of the respondents-State to terminate the services of the petitioner with effect from 12.2.2008 is declared illegal. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Letters dated 31.12.2007 and 12.2.2008 are quashed and set aside. It is declared that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service up to 30.6.2008 on the basis of letter dated 25.9.2007. Respondents are further directed to work out the retiral benefits of petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. March 09, 2010. (sck).