HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. : 301 of 2005. Decided on: 18.8.2009. State of H.P. and others ……… Petitioners. Versus Rameshwar Dass ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners: M/s R.M. Bisht, Rajesh Mandhotra and Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the respondent: Ms.Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral): The controversy in this writ petition is extremely short. The respondent was engaged as daily waged labourer in the Forest Department of the State of H.P. He filed an Original Application before the learned Tribunal claiming that though he was engaged as a labourer, he actually performed the duties of a Peon right from the year 1987 onwards. During the pendency of the Original Application before the Tribunal, the services of the respondent were regularized as Peon in the year 1998. Since the services of the respondent were regularized, the _________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - only dispute which remained to be decided by the Tribunal was with regard to the pay to which the respondent was entitled to. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent had worked as Peon throughout and, therefore, allowed the Original Application and held that the respondent was entitled to wages equivalent to the minimum salary payable to a regularly appointed Peon. The challenge by the State in this writ petition is only to the direction of the Tribunal directing that minimum salary payable of the regular Peon may be paid to the respondent. Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General, has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and another versus Tilak Raj and others, (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 123, wherein it has been held as follows: “11. A scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily- wager, he holds no posts. The respondent workers cannot be held to hold any posts to claim even any comparison with the regular and permanent staff for any or all purposes including a claim for equal pay and allowances…………………………………” It is urged that the Tribunal erred in directing that the minimum salary of the regular Peon be paid to the respondent. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal could not have passed the aforesaid directions. However, it is not disputed before us that the respondent actually worked as Peon for the entire period and during this period when he worked as Peon he was paid the daily - 3 - wages fixed by the Labour Commissioner payable in case of a labourer. We are of the view that the respondent is entitled to daily wages payable to the daily waged Peon as notified by the Finance Department of the State of H.P. for its employees from time to time. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition by modifying the last portion of the order of the Tribunal and direct that the respondent, for the period he was on daily wages, shall be paid daily wages fixed by the Finance Department of the State of H.P. payable to the Peons from time to time. The State is directed to ensure that the arrears, if any, payable to the respondent are paid to him within four months from today, failing which, the respondent shall be entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the Original Application till the date of deposit/payment. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (V.K. Ahuja), August 18, 2009. Judge. (TILAK)