IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 9015 of 2008. Decided on: 3.8.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Rattnu … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. ______________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The present petition has been filed for counting the services the petitioner has rendered with effect from 15.5.1961 to 30.11.1974. Mr. Tek Chand Sharma has vehemently argued that the petitioner was appointed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar as contingent paid employee on 15.5.1961. According to him, the petitioner was entitled to get the entire services counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits with effect from 15.5.1961 to 30.11.1974. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that the services rendered by the petitioner with effect from 15.5.1961 to 30.11.1974 were on ad hoc basis. I have heard the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 The petitioner served a legal notice upon the respondents under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 7.2.2001. The Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Mandi has informed the petitioner that he was never appointed on contingent post of Mali and according to him, he was appointed on ad hoc basis against the post of contingent paid. It is also evident from letter dated 8.7.1974 (Annexure R-1) that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis against the post of contingent paid Mali at the Institute. In these circumstances, the services rendered by the petitioner on ad hoc basis cannot be directed to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The matter is required to be considered from another angle. The petitioner has retired on 31.10.1998. The present petition was filed on 9.4.2001. The cause of action has arisen to the petitioner in the year 1974 when his services were regularized. He should have filed the petition for the redressal of his grievance within a reasonable time. Mr. Tek Chand Sharma has failed to point out any rule or instructions issued by the State Government for counting the services rendered by the petitioner on ad hoc basis with effect from 15.5.1961 to 30.11.1974. Accordingly, it is held that the present petition is barred by delay and laches also. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. August 3, 2009. (cr)