IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. COPC No.: 321 of 2010. Decided on: 17.06.2011. ___________________________________________ Rajesh Kanwar and another. … Petitioner. Versus S.C. Sood. … Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Janender Mittal, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): CWP(T) No.5865 of 2008 was disposed of by this Court on 27th July, 2010. The judgment dated 27th July, 2010 reads thus:- “It is jointly represented by the learned counsel for the parties that the case of the petitioner can be considered in view of the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 448 of 2005, titled as H.P. Housing & 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Urban Development Authority versus Nisha Sharma & Ors., decided on 24th July, 2008. 2. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner, as per the principles laid down in judgment, cited hereinabove, within a period of eight weeks from today, on the production of certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner is held entitled to all the consequential benefits.” 2. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate has taken the Court to the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.1432 of 2003 preferred by Smt. Nisha Sharma, which was decided on 1st March, 2005. The H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority preferred a writ petition bearing No. 448 of 2005 before this Court assailing the judgment rendered in O.A. No.1432 of 2003. The same was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 24th July, 2008. Primarily, the dispute which arose before the learned Tribunal was with regard to payment of minimum wages since the petitioners claimed that they should be paid the minimum wages fixed for a Tracer Draftsman and not the wages payable to a daily wage Beldar/Mazdoor. In fact, this plea was accepted by the Tribunal and the respondent-Board was directed to work out the difference between the wages paid to the petitioners and to be paid on the enhanced rates of Tracer Draughtsman. - 3 - 3. In view of the above stated position, Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate was permitted to seek instructions qua the petitioners whether presently they are discharging the duties of Clerks or not. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate submits that since the petitioners are working as Clerks presently, he has advised the respondent-Board to pay to petitioner No.1 a sum of ` 70,948/- and a sum of ` 61,960/- to petitioner No.2. 4. Consequently, the respondent-Board is directed to release the amounts aforementioned to the petitioners within a period of six weeks from today and also to keep on releasing the salary of the post of Clerk in case the petitioners are made to work as Clerks in future as well. 5. In view of the above observations, the petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. The notice is discharged. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. June 17, 2011. (sck).