IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 6861 of 2008. Reserved on: 30.03.2010. Decided on: 09.04.2010. __________________________________________________________ Smt. Parvati Rana. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J.: Petitioner was engaged in the office of Conservator of Forests with effect from 12.8.1985 as daily wager against the post of Khalasi. The case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that though she was appointed on daily wage basis, however, she had been working as Clerk with effect from 12.8.1985. She made representations for regularizing her services as well as for enhanced wages. These representations were not decided by the respondents. She approached this Court by way of CWP No.892 of 1993 seeking higher wages. The writ petition was decided on 11.1.1994. Respondents were directed vide Annexure 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - A-4, dated 11.1.1994 to pay the petitioner the wages equivalent to the wages being paid to other daily rated incumbents doing the work of clerical nature. She was regularised as office Worker/Peon on 31.12.1997. She made a representation on 8.9.1998 bringing to the notice of the respondents that since she had been working as Clerk, her services should have been regularised as Clerk and not as office Worker. Same was rejected on 2.8.1999. Mr. H.K. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client had been working as Clerk with effect from 12.8.1985 and her services were required to be regularised as Clerk immediately after completion of ten years of service. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that since the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis, she cannot be regularised as Clerk. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings carefully. Petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis on 12.8.1985. It has come in the reply that the petitioner was doing diary/despatch work, being literate, in addition to her own duties of Peon. In para 6(xi) of the reply, respondents have admitted that the petitioner had been working as Clerk and was being paid accordingly with effect from 5.7.1993. Mr. H.K. Paul has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure A-10/T, dated 28th February, 1996. This letter has been written by the Chief Conservator of Forests (P&D) to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. He has informed the Principal Chief - 3 - Conservator of Forests that the petitioner was continuously working as Clerk for the last ten years and has completed 240 days every year. It means that the petitioner had been working as Clerk from the very beginning, i.e. 12th August, 1985. The case of the petitioner was required to be considered for regularization to the post of Clerk in view of the admission made in the reply as well as per contents of letter dated 28th February, 1996. The action of the respondents of regularizing the petitioner as office Worker and not as Clerk on 31.12.1997 was arbitrary exercise of power. The representation made by the petitioner on 8.9.1998 was rejected by the respondent on 2nd August, 1999 without a speaking order. Mr. H.K. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the copy of office order dated 21.7.2005 whereby petitioner has been promoted to the post of Clerk from Class-IV. However, fact of the matter is that the petitioner should have been regularised as Clerk immediately after completion of ten years service. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization to the post of Clerk with effect from August, 1995 with all consequential benefits, within a period of ten weeks from today. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. April 09, 2010. (sck).