IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.3927/2008 Decided on:22.6.2010 _____________________________________________ Nirbhay Singh Kanwar. ….Petitioner. Versus The Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation and others. … Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Virender Verma, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.3. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Assistant on temporary basis vide memorandum dated 30.6.1977. He joined his duties on 30.6.1977. According to the petitioner, though he stood appointed on 30.6.1977, fresh appointment letter was issued on 24.9.1983 appointing him Laboratory Assistant. Mr. T.S. Chauhan has also drawn the attention of the Court to the decision of the Board of Directors whereby the petitioner has been offered appointment as Laboratory Assistant in the year 1983. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Mr. Virender Verma, and Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General have strenuously argued that the services of the petitioner were terminated pursuant to Annexure R-1 dated 5.7.1977. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused pleadings carefully. It is evident from Annexure A-1 dated 30.6.1977 that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs. 110-250. One month notice was required to be issued by the Appointing Authority before terminating his service. No notice has been placed on record by the respondents. I have gone through the contents of Annexure R-1/1 dated 5.7.1977. The Managing Director of Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation Limited has only informed the Divisional Manager of R&T Factory to cancel the appointment of the petitioner. Respondents have not placed any order on record whereby services of the petitioner were terminated in sequel to order dated 5.7.1977. According to Mr. Virender Verma, fresh interviews were held in sequel to Annexure R-1/1. Fresh interviews were only to be held, if the appointment of the petitioner was ever cancelled in accordance with law. In these circumstances, though the petitioner has again joined on 11.10.1983, however, the period with effect from 30.6.1977 till 11.10.1983 is required to be counted for the purpose of seniority alone. No other point was urged. 3 In the light of above, the petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to count the period with effect from 30.6.1977 to 11.10.1983 for the purpose of continuity in service and seniority alone. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 22.6.2010 *awasthi*