CWP(T) No. 6545/2008 (OA 652/2000) 21.04.2010 Present: Mr. K. C. Sankhyan, Advocate, vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. Originally the petition was filed on 26.2.2000 before the H.P. Administrative Tribunal at Shimla. O.A. No. 652/2000 was transferred to this Court and renumbered at CWP(T) No. 6545 of 2008. The petition was admitted on 11.5.2005 and has come up for hearing now. The petitioner claims to have worked as a Clerk. As such he is seeking regularisation of his services and also wages of a Clerk. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no instructions from his client. In the reply the State has seriously disputed the fact that the petitioner worked as a Clerk. In view of the disputed question of fact the question of petitioner’s entitlement of salary as Clerk cannot be considered at all. Insofar as regularisation is concerned it is the categorical defence of the State that the petitioner was engaged only as part time Class-IV employee on 28.5.1988. It is stated at the Bar that the State Government has now formulated a policy for according benefits to even part time employees. There is nothing on record to show as to whether such benefits have been in fact accorded or not. No instructions are even forthcoming from the petitioner. As such it is directed that if already -2- not considered and benefits granted, the respondent/State shall consider the petitioner’s claim for entitlement under the scheme formulated for the part time Class-IV employees. Necessary action, if any, shall be taken within a period of four months from today. With these observations the present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 21, 2010 (PK)