Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.4430 of 2009. Date of Decision: November 22, 2011. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Saran Dass ……… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others. ….. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mr.Anuj Nag, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G., for respondent No.1. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The petitioner was initially appointed as a helper on and w.e.f. 3.9.1982 on regular basis in Pathankot Unit of respondent-Corporation. He remained willfully absent approximately for two years and seven months i.e. w.e.f. 5.9.1994 to 28.2.1997. In the domestic inquiry, he was held guilty, accordingly the order of removal from his service was passed. However, petitioner challenged it before the Appellate Authority i.e. Divisional Manager, Dharamshala. While - 2 - upholding the misconduct and taking a lenient view, on the undertaking given on affidavit that he would not claim any service benefit of the previous service, he was ordered to be reappointed a0gainst the said post. Thereafter w.e.f 25.5.1998, he served the respondents till his retirement on 30.9.2007. The respondents released the retirement gratuity as well as service gratuity, but he was not granted any pension as he did not complete the requisite period of 10 years of service. 2. Now, the petitioner seeks the relief to count the past service for the purposes of pension and prayed to release all the arrears and other consequential benefits, by filing the present petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record. 4. Though the petitioner was initially appointed as a helper on 3.9.1982, but there has been interruption in service because of his willful absence. Thus, the period of interruption in - 3 - service between termination/ removal and the date of his reappointment is not be counted for the qualifying service in absence of any specific order of the authority which reappointed him. Since the petitioner did not complete 10 years as a qualifying and continuous service, without any interruption, therefore, relief sought for cannot be granted. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition as also the pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. (Surinder Singh) Judge November 22, 2011. (Pds)