IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 1057/2008 Reserved on: 15.3.2010 Decided on:9.4.2010 _____________________________________________ Om Prakash. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, J (oral) Material facts, necessary for the adjudication of this petition, are that petitioner was called upon to appear in the interview in the office of Deputy Director, Industries on 15.9.1988. He appeared in the interview and consequently appointment letter was issued in his favour, whereby he was appointed as Peon-cum-Driver in the pay scale of Rs. 300-400. He joined his duties on 3.12.1988. He was appointed as Driver in the pay scale of Rs. 950-2100 plus Rs. 150/- as special pay purely on temporary basis for a period of three 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 months as stopgap arrangement during the suspension period of Sh. Bhag Chand or till his reinstatement, whichever was earlier vide office dated 20.7.1989. He was reverted on 28.8.1989. Thereafter he was again appointed as Driver in the pay scale of Rs. 950-2100 plus Rs. 150/- as special pay purely on temporary basis for the period of three months as stopgap arrangement during the period Sh. Sher Singh Driver remained under suspension or till the suspension of Sher Singh was revoked, whichever was earlier. This order was passed on 5.2.1990. This period was extended from time to time. He worked upto 31.7.1992. He was regularized with effect from 31.3.1994. However, he was regularized as Driver with effect from 1.8.1992 vide Annexure A-3 dated 24.5.1996. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he should have been appointed as Driver from the date of his joining i.e. 3.12.1988. On the other hand, case of the respondent-State is that petitioner was appointed as Peon-cum-Driver and he cannot be appointed as Driver from his initial date of appointment. Mr. Onkar Jairath has vehemently argued that his client should be appointed as Driver from the initial date of engagement on the basis of letter dated 20.7.1989 and 5.2.1990. Mr. R.K. Sharma has strenuously argued that since the petitioner was appointed as Peon-cum-Driver, he cannot be regularized as Driver from the initial date of joining i.e. 3.12.1988. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 3 Petitioner was appointed as Peon-cum-Driver as per Annexure R-1 dated 17.11.1988. He joined his duties in the same capacity. He was permitted to work as Driver initially vide letter dated 20.7.1989 and thereafter with effect from 5.2.1990 to 31.7.1992. He has been paid the higher pay scale of Rs. 950-2100 plus Rs. 150/- as special pay, while he has worked as Driver. The pay scale of the Peon-cum-Driver is Rs. 300-400. Since the petitioner was appointed as Peon-cum-Driver, his appointment cannot be treated as Driver from the initial date of appointment. The pay scales of Peon-cum-Driver and Driver are different. Petitioner should have raised objection at the time of issuance of Annexure R-I or at the time of joining that he should have been appointed as Driver. Petitioner has been regularized with effect from 1.8.1992 as per letter dated 24.5.1996. He has filed this petition in the year 2008. He has not explained the delay in filing this petition belatedly. Cause of action arose to the petitioner at the time when he joined his duties as Peon-cum-Driver, thereafter on 31.3.1994 when he was regularized as Driver and thereafter on 24.5.1996 when he was regularized with effect from 1.8.1992 instead of 31.3.1994. Petitioner cannot be permitted to rake up the stale claim. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 9.4. 2010. *awasthi*