IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 7992 of 2008 Judgment reserved on: 16.12.2010 Date of decision: 21.2.2011. Ashwani Kumar …..Petitioner. Vs. H.P.State Forest Corporation Ltd. And another …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. J.R. Thakur, Advocate . Kuldip Singh, J. The petitioner has confined his submissions to relief No.2 prayed in the petition at the time of hearing of the petition. In relief No.2, the petitioner has prayed a direction to respondent No.1/Corporation to grant wages of helper to the petitioner on the principle of equal pay for equal work, for the period the services of the petitioner were availed by respondent No.1 as helper. 2. It is not necessary to give facts in detail stated in the petition in view of relief confined by the petitioner at the time of hearing of the petition. The necessary relevant facts for the relief in Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… question are that the petitioner was appointed as office chowkidar on 13.2.1989 on daily wage basis. The services of the petitioner were regularized as office chowkidar on 4.6.1999. The respondent No.1 had been extracting continuously clerical work from the petitioner. The petitioner had worked as helper in the office of respondent No.1. The petitioner has relied memo dated 23.4.1998 issued by Divisional Manager and addressed to the petitioner that he would assist Tek Chand Rai, Senior Clerk in Accounts Branch to complete the arrears. It has been stated that vide office order dated 24.7.1996 it was directed that petitioner would perform duties as instructed by the Branch Incharge. 3. The petitioner had been making representations from time to time to respondent No.1 seeking his appointment to the post of helper. One such representation dated 28.8.2001 has been annexed by petitioner with the petition. 4. The petitioner had served respondents/corporation as helper but he has not been paid wages meant for the helper. It has been stated that petitioner is entitled to wages of helper for the period he had worked as helper with respondent No.1 on the principle of equal pay for equal work. 5. The petition has been contested by respondents by filing the reply and it has been stated in the reply that the petitioner has been regularized as chowkidar on 4.6.1999 and he has filed the …3… present petition after more than two years. The petition is time barred. The petitioner was engaged as chowkidar on daily wage basis on 13.2.1989. On his verbal request the petitioner was retained in the office due to illness of his wife. The respondents had rejected the representation of the petitioner on 28.8.2001 on the ground that the petitioner has been appointed as daily wage chowkidar from his initial appointment and has been rightly regularized as chowkidar. The petitioner has filed rejoinder and reiterated his stand taken by him in the petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the petition the emphasis has been made for a direction to respondent No.1/corporation to appoint the petitioner as helper from the date his juniors were appointed on the posts of helper. In the petition prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to grant wages of helper to the petitioner on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The case of the petitioner is that since petitioner had worked as helper with respondents, therefore, he is entitled to wages of helper. The stand of the respondents is that petitioner was appointed as daily wage chowkidar on 13.2.1989 and on his verbal request he was retained in the office due to illness of his wife. 7. The office order dated 24.7.1996 simply indicates that the petitioner would perform duties as instructed by the Branch Incharge. This does not mean that duties of helper were assigned …4… to the petitioner vide office order dated 24.7.1996. The memo dated 23.4.1998 provides that petitioner would assist to Tek Chand Rai, Senior Clerk in Accounts Branch to complete the arrears. This also does not mean that petitioner was assigned the job of helper vide memo dated 23.4.1998. The appreciation letter dated 18.12.2000 Annexure A-3 covers the period 1996 to 2000 for showing keen interest and co-operation in updating of the official work of Forest Working Division, Hamirpur. This also no where leads to interference that the petitioner was assigned the job of helper during 1996 to 2000. The Annexure A-4 and Annexure A-5 pertains to one Kesho Raj. The petitioner made another representation dated 31.8.2001 Annexure A-6 in which he has stated that he was appointed on 13.2.1989 on daily wage basis and paid the wages of chowkidar though he had worked in office against the post of office helper till 3.6.1999. The petitioner has been regularized w.e.f. 4.6.1999 and he joined as office chowkidar in Forest Working Division, Hamirpur. He has prayed for changing of his designation from office chowkidar to office helper. The request of petitioner for changing the designation was rejected on 28.8.2001. 8. The petitioner in para-6 (b) of the petition has stated that he had been associated with the clerical nature of work, precisely that of a helper in the office of respondents/corporation at various times. The petitioner has also taken the stand that the …5… respondents/corporation has been continuously extracting the clerical work from the petitioner notwithstanding the initial appointment of the petitioner as chowkidar and subsequent regularization against the post of office chowkidar. The two stands of petitioner regarding working as office helper with respondents are not identical. The petitioner has projected his case that he had worked as office helper right from the very beginning on 13.2.1989. In these circumstances, there should be some documentary evidence to show that in fact petitioner was assigned the job of office helper by respondents right from the very beginning. Simply because the petitioner was accommodated in the office on his request on account of illness of his wife that does not mean that petitioner was entrusted the job of office helper or the work of helper was extracted from him. 9. In the representation Annexure A-6 dated 31.8.2001 petitioner has not made any grievance for payment of his wages as office helper even though he has requested for changing of his designation from office chowkidar to office helper. The petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 4.6.1999, he accepted such regularization without objection, this also indicates that petitioner had worked as chowkidar and not as office helper. The petitioner was engaged on 13.2.1989, he claimed that he had worked as office helper right from the very beginning. The present petition was filed on 4.10.2001. There is no explanation why from 13.2.1989 to 4.10.2001 he has not claimed …6… wages of office helper. The petitioner has failed to make out any case that he had worked as office helper with respondents and therefore, he is not entitled to wages of office helper. 10. In view of above discussion, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. February 21, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh ), (sks) Judge.