IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.: 6306 of 2008 Date of decision: 6.9.2010 Hem Raj Thakur … Petitioner. Versus HRTC and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed for the grant of the following amongst other reliefs:- (i) The respondents may kindly be directed to make the payment of salary to the petitioner from 1.4.1997 to 21.3.1998 alongwith interest, i.e. of retiral period. (ii) That the respondents be directed to count the above said retiral period in service and increments of the said period may also be ordered to be granted/awarded to the applicant. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 2. Admittedly, the petitioner was employed as a driver with the respondent-Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC). On 30.12.1996 the petitioner gave three months notice to his employer HRTC requesting that he be given voluntary retirement after expiry of three months. This prayer was accepted and an order was issued on 31.3.1997 retiring the applicant from service on acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement. It appears that thereafter the petitioner made some applications for grant of retiral benefits to him. When he filed this application, the higher authorities found that the petitioner had wrongly been voluntarily retired since he has not completed 20 years of service, which was a pre-requisite for grant of voluntary retirement. Accordingly, the order dated 31.3.1997 was withdrawn vide office order dated 27.5.1997 (Annexure PC). It is important to note that this order recalling the retirement order of 31.3.1997 is not under challenge in this petition and the petitioner also accepts this order. 3. The petitioner’s case is that though by order dated 27.5.1997 his earlier retirement order was withdrawn but he was not given any place of 3 posting and therefore, he did not know what he had to do and where he had to join. He thereafter made two representations to the Managing Director of the HRTC in which again he prayed that retiral benefits had not been paid to him and he also stated that in reply to one of these letters, the Regional Manager, Sundernagar had informed him that the petitioner was not entitled to any retiral benefits since he had not completed 20 years of service. However, this letter has not been placed on record on this petition by the petitioner but the letter which he has placed clearly shows that the Regional Manager was of the view that the petitioner was not entitled to any retiral benefits since he had not completed 20 years of service. 4. Finally, on 31.12.1997 the Regional Manager sent a letter to the petitioner asking him to join duties within seven days failing which it would be deemed that he had resigned from service. The petitioner did not even join within seven days but submitted his joining report on 21.2.1998. 5. The main contention of the petitioner is that he was never informed about the place 4 where he had to join. This contention is totally without merit. If the retirement or termination order of any employee is set-aside it obviously means that he has to rejoin his service at the place where he was serving immediately prior to his retirement or termination of his service. It is only if he is to be posted at some other place then a specific order has to be passed. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner ever went to the office of the Regional Manager and submitted his joining report prior to 21.2.1998. If the petitioner was in a state of quandary as to where he was to join how did his doubts vanish suddenly when he was given an ultimatum that if he did not join service it would be presumed that he had resigned from service. After receipt of such notice any such doubts in his mind vanished and he went to rejoin the service in the office of the Regional Manager, Sundernagar which he should have been done at the first instance. Therefore, I find no merit in the first prayer made by the petitioner. 6. In addition to that, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case the petitioner cannot be paid salary for the period when he has 5 not worked since he himself invited the trouble by applying for voluntary retirement. 7. Having held so, the HRTC itself is also not without fault. If the first application of the petitioner was not to be allowed he should not have been retired at the first instance. In this manner, the petitioner was kept in a state of limbo for a long period. Though he may not be entitled to salary for this period, this period of absence after giving him leave of the kind due must be taken into consideration for grant of seniority, continuity in service and to work out his pensionary benefits, etc. The petition is disposed of in the light of the aforesaid observations. No order as to costs. 6th September, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.