IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2043 of 2008. Decided on: 18.4.2009. __________________________________________________ Shri Udya Singh Thakur … Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. .… Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee in the office of Chief Medical Officer, District Kinnaur, Kalpa on 12.4.1978. He was confirmed on 31.12.1988. According to him, he was made to work as Driver with effect from 1985 on the basis of driving licence Annexure P-3. He was issued experience certificate by the Medical Officer on 2.9.1987 recommending his case for selection to the post of a Driver. He has placed on record Annexures P-5 to P-8 whereby he has been directed to work as Driver from time to time. He had been making entries in the log 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 book since 6.12.1989 onwards as per Annexures P-9 to P-23. Annexure P-9 is dated 6.12.1989 and Annexure P-23 is dated 6.1.1992. Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that his client has been working uninterruptedly as Driver with effect from 1985. He has placed strong reliance on Annexures P-5 to P-23 to substantiate the plea that his client was working as Driver. He has also submitted that his client be appointed in Class III post on the basis of experience gained by him as a Driver. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has submitted that the petitioner had been directed to work as a Driver occasionally and as far as making of entries in the log book are concerned, the same are disputed. He lastly contended that the experience certificate has been issued by the Medical Officer for recommending his case for the post of a Driver. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee on 12.4.1978. He was confirmed on 31.12.1988. He had only worked occasionally as per Annexures P-5 to P-8. However, it appears from a perusal of the records i.e. Annexures P-9 to P-23 that he had been making entries in the log book with effect from 6.12.1989 to 6.1.1992. In fact, he has also signed these entries in the log book. The petitioner has produced tangible evidence to establish that he had been working as a Driver uninterruptedly with effect from 6.12.1989 to 6.1.1992. He is entitled to the salary for this period on the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. The plea 3 raised by Mr. R.K. Sharma that another Driver was appointed to drive the vehicle in question cannot be accepted in view of overwhelming evidence led by the petitioner by way of Annexures P-9 to P-23. However, the plea of the petitioner that he should be regularized as Class III on the basis that he had been driving the jeep for the period, as noticed above, merits rejection. There is a detailed procedure for making selection to Class III posts and for the simple reason that the petitioner had worked as Driver uninterruptedly with effect from 2.9.1987 to 5.12.1989, he cannot be appointed/regularized against Class III post. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the petitioner the salary of Driver with effect from 6.12.1989 to 6.1.1992 within a period of eight weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. April 18, 2009. (cr)