SUSHIL CHAND RATTAN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Rural Publicity Worker on 12.10.1953 in the Public Relations Department, Punjab. He was promoted as Rural Publicity Organizer on 16th December, 1961. He was further promoted to the post of Field Publicity Assistant on 1st September, 1965. He was allocated to the State of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. 1.11.1966. He superannuated on 31.3.1982. However, the services he has rendered from 12.10.1953 to 18.12.1961 were not taken into consideration towards qualifying service for granting pensionary benefits to him. He approached the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 46 of 1995 for the redressal of his grievance. The same was directed to be treated as representation by the Tribunal and it stood rejected by the competent authority on 24th April, 1995.

(2.) Mr. K.S. Banyal, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 12.10.1953 to 18.12.1961 is required to be counted towards qualifying service for granting pensionary benefits to his client. He then argued that the case of the petitioner has been rejected arbitrarily on 24.04.1995.

(3.) Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was not appointed on regular basis. Thus, the period w.e.f. 12.10.1953 to 18.12.1961 cannot be counted for qualifying service.