1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 403 of 2011 alongwith LPA Nos. 426. 427, 428, 429, 430, 431 and 432 of 2011. Decided on: 21.10.2011. 1. LPA No. 403 of 2011 H.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board & anr. ..Appellants Versus Ghanshyam & another. ...Respondents 2. LPA No. 426 of 2011 H.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board & anr. ..Appellants Versus Dile Ram & another. ...Respondents 3. LPA No. 427 of 2011 H.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board & anr. ..Appellants Versus Nanak Chand & another. ...Respondents 4. LPA No. 428 of 2011 H.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board & anr. ..Appellants Versus Bhuri Singh & another ...Respondents 5. LPA No. 429 of 2011 H.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board & anr. ..Appellants Versus Harish Kumar & another ...Respondents 6. LPA No. 430 of 2011 2 H.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board & anr. . .Appellants Versus Keshav Ram & another ...Respondents 7. LPA No. 431 of 2011 H.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board & anr. ..Appellants Versus Dev Raj & another ...Respondents 8. LPA No. 432 of 2011 H.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board & anr. ..Appellants Versus Dharnidhar & another ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. For the appellant(s ) : Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) CMP(M) No.1463 of 2011 in LPA No. 403 of 2011 CMP (M) No. 1518 of 2011 in LPA No. 428 of 2011 CMP (M) No. 1519 of 2011 in LPA No. 429 of 2011 CMP (M) No. 1520 of 2011 in LPA No. 430 of 2011 CMP (M) No. 1521 of 2011 in LPA No. 431 of 2011 CMP (M) No. 1522 of 2011 in LPA No. 432 of 2011 3 Heard. The delay in filing the appeals is condoned. The applications stand disposed of. LPA Nos. 403, 426. 427, 428, 429, 430, 431 and 432 of 2011. Respondent, H.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board and others have come up in appeal against the common judgment dated 29th March, 2011 rendered in CWP No. 3200 of 2010 and other connected cases. The writ petitioner approached this Court, seeking equal pay for equal work, contending that all of them had been deputed at the Barriers. It was submitted that though they were substantially engaged as daily paid labourers, they have actually been discharging the work of clerks. Since the learned Single Judge who having seen the records has dealt with the factual position, it will be profitable to go through paragraph 3 of the judgment, which reads as follows: “3. This Court had called for the record especially the case and accounts register of the check post and it is found that these cash and accounts registers are being maintained by the petitioners. Not only do they maintain the cash and accounts register, after collecting the fees, they are depositing the same in the banks also. This cannot be said to be labour/unskilled work by any stretch of imagination. This is clerical work. Therefore the petitioners are entitled to be paid the minimum daily wages payable to a clerk.” 4 2. If that be the factual position, we do not find any justification to take a different stand. So long as the writ petitioners are engaged to do the works as indicated in the judgment, as extracted above, it cannot be said that they are doing the work of labourers. It is certainly open to the appellants to replace them by duly appointed clerks. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioners submits that in view of the long experience gained by the writ petitioners, it is only just, proper and reasonable that the writ petitioners are considered for appointment as clerks. It is a matter for the appellants to look into, as observed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge having regard to the factual position has correctly entered a finding regarding the entitlement of the writ petitioners. The view thus taken by the learned Single Judge is the only view that can be taken in the factual matrix. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeals and the same are accordingly, dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. October 21, 2011 (Justice Surinder Singh), (hl/priti) Judge.