IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T Nos.14054,14055, 14056, 14059 and 14061/2008 Decided on:23.3.2010 _____________________________________________ 1. CWP (T) No. 14054/2008 Devi Ram. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. 2. CWP (T) No. 14055/2008 Charan Singh. …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. 3. CWP (T) No. 14056/2008 Sobha Ram. …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. 4. CWP (T) No. 14059/2008 Hukam Chand. …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. 5. CWP (T) No. 14061/2008 Bhag Singh. …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. 2 Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Balbir Chauhan, Advocate. (in all the petitions) For the Respondents: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. (in all the petitions) _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, the same are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Case of petitioners, in a nutshell, is that they have been appointed as Cooks in Indira Gandhi Medical College and are preparing meals in two shifts i.e. morning shift and evening shift for 600 patients daily. According to them, though they have been performing same duties, which are being performed by regularly appointed Cooks, they are not being paid the salary of the post of Cook. Case of respondent-State, in a nutshell, is that the petitioners were appointed as Class-IV employees and on their free volition they are working as Cooks. Mr. Balbir Chauhan has vehemently argued that his clients are working as Cooks and are entitled to regular pay scale of the post of Cook i.e. Rs. 3120-5160 (revised). He then contended that respondent-State is a welfare State and cannot be permitted to exploit the poor workmen. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the petitioners are Class-IV employees 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 3 and have never been directed to discharge the duties of Cooks in the Indira Gandhi Medical College. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. There are 12 sanctioned posts of Cooks in Indira Gandhi Medical College. However, only one post is filled up. It cannot be imagined that one Cook can prepare breakfast, lunch and dinner for 600 patients daily. It can safely be presumed that the work of cooking the meal is being performed by the petitioners. There is no specific denial by the respondent-State, in its reply, that petitioners are not working as Cooks in the Indira Gandhi Medical College. The plea of the State, as per the reply, that petitioners are only working, as Class-IV employees in the kitchen, cannot be accepted. The meals can only be cooked by Cooks and not by Class-IV employees. More or less it is a specialized job. From the fact that only one regular incumbent is working, it can safely be concluded that the meals are being prepared by the petitioners. Petitioners have also made representation to the Principal, Indira Gandhi Medical College for redressal of their grievance. The same has not been addressed to. Similarly situate persons had also approached the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 1687/2000 and on the basis of the orders passed by the learned Tribunal, notification dated 18.7.2006 has been issued whereby the pay scale of Cooks has been revised from Rs.400-600 to Rs. 950-1800 and thereafter to Rs. 3120-5160. It was expected from the respondent-State that the petitioners shall also be treated 4 in the manner in which Chet Ram and others have been treated for the release of pay scale. Respondents have extracted the work of Cooks from the petitioners but have not granted the pay scale of Cooks to them, which amounts to unfair labour practice. This practice is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners have conclusively proved that they had been working as Cooks and preparing meals for 600 patients daily in two shifts i.e. morning shift and evening shift. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioners for the release of pay scale of Rs. 400-600 with effect from 1.3.1980, 950-1800 with effect from 1.1.1986 and Rs. 3120-5160 with effect from 1.1.1996. They are also held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum. Needful be done within a period of ten weeks from today. No costs. Before parting with the judgment, it is made clear that respondents shall also take into consideration the judgment cited in Annexure A-2 dated 18.7.2006. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 23.3.2010 *awasthi*