IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 6575/2008 Decided on:6.9.2010 _____________________________________________ Dharma Chand. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. J.S. Bagga, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge ( oral ) . Petitioner, while working in the Cooperative Department, was sent on deputation on 20.9.1984 initially for a period of one year. He applied for his permanent absorption with respondent No.3 vide application dated 11.4.1985. This application was forwarded by respondent No.3 vide letter dated 12.7.1985 for issuing ‘no objection certificate’, in favour of the petitioner. Vide letter dated 1.8.1985, he was allowed to be permanently absorbed with respondent No.3. Thereafter on receiving ‘no objection 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes certificate’ dated 26.12.1987, office memorandum dated 14.9.1988 was issued. Petitioner was directed to give his consent within two days. He gave his consent on 15.9.1988. In sequel thereto, he was appointed as a clerk on transfer basis. He was put on probation as per office memorandum dated 14.9.1988 for a period of two years. It can safely be presumed that he completed his probation period satisfactorily. 2. It will be pertinent to take not at this stage for completion of facts that petitioner was also directed to be repatriated on 12.5.1987, 1.7.1987, 28.7.1987 and 3.9.1987. However, he was never repatriated. He made the first representation on 14.7.1997 for his repatriation and alternatively for considering his case for proforma promotion in the Cooperative Department as Senior Assistant. This prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 16.10.1999. Petitioner was informed that he could not seek repatriation after 11 years from the date of his permanent absorption with respondent No.3, which was not in conformity with Government of India’s decision No.2 below Rule 13 of F.R. and S.R. 3. It is, thus, evident from the facts enumerated hereinabove that the petitioner was permanently absorbed in respondent No.3-institution. Since the petitioner had already been permanently absorbed in the respondent No.3- institution and had completed probation period satisfactorily, he was not holding lien on any post in the Cooperative Department. Accordingly, his case for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant in the Cooperative Department could not be considered, as claimed by him. 4. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 6.9.2010 *awasthi*