RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was engaged as JBT Teacher on tenure basis in the respondent-department vide order dated 27.7.1988. Since, petitioner remained absent willfully and unauthorizedly from duty with effect from May 1991 to July 13, 1992, his services were terminated w.e.f. May 9, 1991.

(2.) Being aggrieved with the aforesaid termination order dated 9th May, 1991, petitioner preferred Original Application bearing No. 211/93 before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, but same was ordered to be treated as representation with the direction to Secretary (Education) to consider and decide the same. Secretary (Education) considered the representation and rejected the same and as such, petitioner was once again compelled to file Original Application bearing No. 1613/1993 before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. On 27.02.2002, learned Tribunal having taken note of the fact that department failed to produce the appointment letter/record of the case despite repeated opportunities allowed the petition and set-aside the termination order of the petitioner. While passing aforesaid order, learned tribunal directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment in terms of his qualifications and experience in any institution under their charge, however, while passing aforesaid direction in favour of the petitioner Tribunal below did not held him entitle to seniority or back wages(Annexure P-1).

(3.) Pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by learned Tribunal, respondent-department, vide order dated 18.9.2002 (Annexure P-2), reinstated the petitioner against the post of JBT teacher on tenure basis in the pay scale of Rs. 4550- 7220/- and posted him in Government Primary School, Jetehri Block Bangana, District Una, H.P., with condition that that he will be entitled for regularization after 10 years of service as JBT and non-duty period will not be counted towards qualifying service of 10 years. On 30th June, 2020, petitioner has superannuated, but since services rendered by him prior to his termination was not taken into consideration by respondent-department while calculating his services for the purpose of pension, he approached this Court by way of instant petition, praying therein following reliefs:-