IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1254 of 2009 Date of Decision: 30.08.2011 Raghu Dass Sharma …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. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J (oral) 1. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.2.2002 passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal rejecting the prayer of the petitioner that he be granted continuity of service. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially engaged on daily wage basis during the year 1956 and was appointed as Mate in the year 1962. He worked as such till 1966 when the services of the petitioner were terminated on 25.11.1966. The petitioner did not challenge his 2 termination of service and he was again appointed as Mate on daily wage in Rampur Division of HPPWD some time in the year 1987. His services were again terminated in June 1991. 3. According to the petitioner he later came to know that one of the other nine employees whose services had been terminated with him on 25.11.1966 was reengaged and appointed on regular basis vide order dated 11.6.1992. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the Governor of Himachal Pradesh and also filed O.A. No. 1588 of 1993 before the erstwhile Tribunal. This O.A. was directed to be treated as representation and consequently the following order was passed by the State Government on 7.9.1994:- “I am directed to refer to your letter No. PWD-133- 1(11th Circle)/94-ES-III-7351-53 dated 8.7.1994 on the above subject and to say that the Government has decided to reappoint Shri Raghu Dass as work charged mate after accepting his mercy petition in this case. Shri Raghu Dass may be appointed as work-charged mate as per provisions of the Rules. It is made clear that this appointment of Shri Raghu Dass will be treated as fresh appointment as such he will not be entitled for the benefit of previous service. He shall also not be entitled for any benefit of the previous service for pension purpose.” 4. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner joined service in the year 1994 itself and a specific condition 3 was made that this was a fresh appointment. The petitioner thereafter made an undated representation that since he would be retiring on 30.4.1998 and would not be entitled to pension he may be granted two years extension of service. He also made a prayer for counting his past service for purpose of pensionary benefits. It is obvious that this representation was made some time in the year 1998 only because it refers to his impending retirement on 30.4.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an O.A. No.759 of 1999 which was rejected by the erstwhile Tribunal on 27.2.2002 by a reasoned order. The petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition in the year 2009 challenging the order of the Tribunal. 5. At the outset it may be stated that the writ petition is highly belated. Other than making a vague assertion that the petitioner was unwell and was under mental depression there is nothing on record to show why the petitioner kept silent for almost seven years. The only two documents placed on record are Annexure P-6 and P-7 and at the best they show that the petitioner after the year 2006 has been undergoing treatment for lumber Spondylisis. This is not such an illness that the petitioner would be unable to engage a lawyer and file a 4 petition in Court. There is no explanation for the period 2002 to 2006. 6. Be that as it may, even on merits once the petitioner joined after a lapse of many years on a specific condition that past service would not be counted for purpose of seniority and pension, the petitioner after his retirement cannot turn around and claim that the past service be counted. In case the petitioner was aggrieved he should have filed the petition immediately and claimed that he was entitled to the past service. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. No costs. 30th August, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.