JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J —Challenge herein is to the judgment dated March 03, 2011 Annexure A-1 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent-writ petitioner has been allowed and the appellants-respondents/State directed to count her services w.e.f. 22.2.1992 onwards only for the purpose of pension. 2. On having gone through the record of this case and taking into consideration the respective contentions made on behalf of the parties, we are satisfied that the impugned judgment is based upon the facts which are true and on the reasoning which is not only as per given facts and circumstances of the case but also as per law. 3. As a matter of fact, it is the appellants-respondent State which has failed in its action because the Screening Committee constituted for making recommendation qua taking over the services of the staff of Gita Vidya Peeth, a privately managed Ayurvedic College at Palampur, taken over on 19.11.1977, has recommended long back i.e. in the year 1982 to take over the services of the respondent-writ petitioner as Ayurvedic Chakitsa Adhikari. She was forced to knock the door of Administrative Tribunal where she filed OA No. 85 of 1986. The OA was allowed on 21.8.1993. The appellants-respondent State, as such, was duty bound to give appointment to the respondent-writ petitioner consequent upon the judgment passed by learned Administrative Tribunal. However, the appointment was not given to her. This has led in filing miscellaneous application in the Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of with a direction to give appointment to the writ petitioner immediately but not later than 22.8.1992. Had the appellants-respondent State acted upon the recommendation of the Screening Committee or immediately on passing the judgment by the Administrative Tribunal in the original application the respondent-writ petitioner would have otherwise become qualified for pensionary benefits. 4. Learned Single Judge therefore, has not committed any illegality or irregularity while allowing the writ petition and directing the appellants-respondent State to count her services only for the purpose of pension. Therefore, we are not satisfied with the grounds of challenge raised in this appeal nor the impugned judgment calls for any interference. 5. The appeal, as such, being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending application, if any, shall also stand dismissed.