CWP No.13716/2008 06.01.2011 Present: Mr. V. D. Khidta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents Vide order dated 4.5.2005 (Annexure A-2), respondents took decision of according benefits to the petitioner while giving her appointment as a Work Charged Beldar. Prior to that she was engaged on compassionate grounds as a daily wager Beldar. Petitioner accepted the offer and joined the office. 2. In terms of representation dated 13.6.2005 (Annexure A- 3), petitioner made a grievance that she has not been accorded benefits in terms of office order dated 4.5.2005. Her representation stands decided in terms of order dated 19.4.2006 (Annexure A-5), which reads as under: “To The Engineer-in-Chief, HP.PWD, U.s. Club, Shimla -171 001. Dated: Shimla – 171 002, the 19/4/2006 Subject: Regarding engagement of Miss Sumitra Devi as Work Charged Beldar from the date of engagement on daily wages. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. PWE-115 (Emp. Asstt.) 2006-ES-III-27075-77, dated 25.3.2006 relating to the subject cited above and to state that the matter has been examined at Government level and it is intimated that Smt. Sumitra Devi can-not be granted work charged status from the date of her initial appointment as daily wager beldar i.e. 11.5.1995. Accordingly, her pay is to be regulated on notional basis from retrospective date and actual benefits are to be given from prospective date i.e. 4.5.2005. You are requested to kindly take further necessary action accordingly. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Under Secretary (PW) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh.” 3. It cannot be disputed that respondents have not assigned any reason for rejecting the petitioner’s request of regularizing her on notional basis or not granting monetary benefits with effect from the date of her appointment i.e. 11.5.1995. Defence taken is that her appointment was on notional basis. This stand of the respondents evidently does not flow from the terms of the office order dated 4.5.2005. In the said order it is no where stated that her appointment w.e.f. 11.5.1995 is to be on notional basis. Consequently, stand taken by the respondents is untenable in law. Accordingly order dated 19.4.2006 (Annexure A-5) is quashed. Consequential order dated 28.4.2006 (Annexure A-6) is also quashed. Respondents are directed to accord all monetary benefits to the petitioner in terms of office order dated 4.5.2005, which undoubtedly has not been clarified or withdrawn till date. 4. Needful be positively done within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. It is clarified that if the amounts due are not disbursed within the aforesaid period, then thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest @9% per annum. With these observations, petition stands disposed of. January 06, 2011 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.