IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 3025 of 2008 (OA No. 330 of 1996). Date of decision: July 16, 2009. Bhura Ram …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate with Mr. Inder Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with and Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). On transfer of cases from H.P. Administrative Tribunal after its abolition, O.A. No. 330 of 1996 which was filed in the erstwhile Tribunal has been registered as CWP(T) No. 3025 of 2008 in this court. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as permanent beldar in Sericulture Department in the year 1966 and he served the department as Beldar till 1990. In the year 1990, he was appointed as Incharge (Parbhari) by respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 12.9.1990 Annexure A-I. The petitioner took the charge of Incharge vide Annexure A-II. The petitioner had worked as Incharge in the said department for five years from 30.9.1990. However, the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… petitioner was paid pay scale of beldar Rs.770-1440 per month in stead of pay scale of Incharge Rs.950-1800 per month. The petitioner made representations Annexure A-III and Annexure IV to pay him the pay scale of Incharge, but his request was turned down. He was rather demoted as Sericulture Beldar vide letter dated 5.10.1995 Annexure A-V. The petitioner has thus prayed for pay scale of Incharge on the principles of equal pay for equal work from the date of his appointment as Incharge. He has also prayed that the respondents may be directed to promote the petitioner as Incharge, as he had worked as such for five years and his reversion as beldar may be set-aside. 3. The petition has been opposed by the respondents and they have pleaded that petitioner was never authorized to function as Incharge (Parbhari). The Silk Seed Production Officer, Nadaun had issued order authorizing Diwan Chand, Incharge Sericulture Centre, Ghumarwin for taking over the charge of store from Smt. Breshti Devi who was to retire on 30.9.1990. Bhura Ram beldar in Government Sericulture Centre, Kandraur was asked by Silk Seed Production Officer vide letter No. 3061 dated 12.9.1990 to perform routine official duties under the supervision and guidance of Diwan Chand Sharma, Sericulture Inspector. It has been denied that petitioner was appointed as Incharge, Government Sericulture Centre, Kandraur. Therefore, there is no question of granting pay scale of Rs.950-1800 to the petitioner per month i.e. the pay scale of Incharge. 4. Heard and perused the record. The letter dated 12.9.1990 Annexure A-1 indicates that Silk Seed Production Officer, …3… Nadaun had directed Diwan Chand Sharma, Incharge, Government Silk Centre, Ghumarwin to look after the work of Incharge of Silk Centre Kandraur on the retirement of Smt. Breshti Devi, Incharge Silk Centre, Kandraur on 30.9.1990. He was also directed to give the charge of Primary Silk Centre, Kandraur to Bhura Ram beldar. Annexure A-II is the copy of various items handed over to petitioner by Smt. Breshti Devi. The petitioner has alleged that he was appointed as Incharge to look after the work of Smt. Breshti Devi w.e.f. 30.9.1990. 5. There is nothing in the letter dated 12.9.1990 Annexure A-1 indicating that petitioner was appointed as Incharge, Primary Silk Centre, Kandraur. Annexure A-II indicates that one time some articles were handed over to petitioner by Smt. Breshti Devi. This does not mean that petitioner was appointed as Incharge, Primary Silk Centre, Kandraur. The word `charge’ in letter dated 12.9.1990 Annexure A-I does not mean that petitioner was appointed Incharge of Primary Silk Centre, Kandraur. The respondents have categorically denied the appointment of petitioner as Incharge of Primary Silk Centre, Kandraur. The petitioner has failed to place on record any appointment letter showing that he was appointed as Incharge, Primary Silk Centre, Kandraur. The case of the petitioner is not for equal pay for equal work, his case is that since he was appointed as Incharge of Primary Silk Centre, therefore, he is entitled to wages/ salary of Incharge. The petitioner has miserably failed to establish that he was appointed Incharge, Primary Silk Centre. In …4… these circumstances, the petitioiner is not entitled to wages/ salary of Incharge, Primary Silk Centre. 6. The petitioner has also prayed that since he had worked for five years as Incharge, therefore, respondents may be directed to promote him as Incharge. This prayer of the petitioner is in conflict with his case that he was appointed as Incharge, which he has failed to prove. In any case, the petitioner has not placed any rule, regulation, instructions on record in support of his case that after allegedly working for five years, he is entitled to promotion as Incharge, hence the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of promotion to the post of Incharge. Once it has been held that petitioner was never appointed as Incharge, therefore, there is no question of his demotion to the post of beldar. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as beldar in Sericulture Department in the year 1966. The petitioner has failed to make out any case, resultantly, petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. July 16, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.