IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2846 of 2008. Decided on: 5.3.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Sham Singh alias Shyam Singh … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 2 : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt.A.G.. For respondent No.3 : Nemo. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petitioner, who had joined the employment of respondent No.3-Panchayat Samiti as a daily rated Beldar on 11.3.1986 was regularized on 27.11.2004. The grievance raised by him is that since the Panchayat Samiti, Indora (respondent No.3) is facing financial crunch, he is not being paid salary for months together. According to the petitioner, similarly situate persons working in Panchayat Samiti, Nurpur have since been absorbed in Government departments vide office order dated 9.9.2007, Annexure PR-1. On the same analogy, the petitioner also craves for similar treatment by respondents No. 1 & 2. 2. On the above averments, the petition has been filed for the grant of following reliefs:- “(i). That the respondents No. 1 & 2 may very kindly be directed to release the grant to Panchayat Samiti, Indora, for the payment of salary of the petitioner as is being done in the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 case of the other employees of the Panchayat Samiti. (ii). That respondents No. 1 & 2 may also be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption of his services in their Panchayati Raj Department.” 3. Respondents No. 1 & 2 have taken the following stand vide paras 1 to 3 of the preliminary submissions:- “1. That it is submitted that the petitioner was engaged by the Panchayat Samiti Indora as Cattle Pond Keeper-cum-Mali @ Rs. 500/- p.m. without prior approval of prescribed authority, keeping in view of its own financial resources. He was regularized by Samitis Class-IV w.e.f. 27.11.2004. Moreover, Panchayat Samiti is paying his salary in the pay scale of the Class- IV from its own resources. 2. That the Panchayat Samiti has engaged the petitioner as Cattle Pond Keeper-cum-Mali without the prior approval of the prescribed authority i.e. Director (PR) under section 135 of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, moreover, his services were further regularized w.e.f. 27.11.2004 as Class-IV by the Samiti, keeping in view its own financial resources. 3. That appointment of the officials in the Panchayat Samiti will be subject to the sufficient funds available with it, as prescribed under section 135 of H.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.” 4. None appears on behalf of respondent No.3 though duly served. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioner making a representation along with copy of this judgment to respondent No.1 within one month from today, the said respondent shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter 3 within next two months in accordance with law and taking into consideration the fact that similarly situate daily rated workers have since been regularized and absorbed in the respondent- Department vide the aforesaid office order dated 9.9.2007, Annexure PR-1, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 6. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. March 5, 2011. (cr)