IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6428 of 2008 Decided on: 10.11.2010 The District Kangra Gram Panchayat Chowkidar Union …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …. Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge For the petitioner: Ms. Anjali Soni, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: (i) That the letter/order dated 2.11.1995 and letter order dated 27.6.1998 issued by the respondent No. 2 may kindly be quashed as the same are illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. (ii) That the respondents may please be directed to regularize the services of member of applicant Union as Panchayat Chowkidars. (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay regular pay scale of Rs.2520-4140 i.e. equal to the pay scale of Class IV employees of the respondent State, to the member of applicant union. (iv) That the respondents may please be directed to pay the daily wages as Rs.51/- forthwith to the member of applicant Union, which is minimum wages prescribed by the respondent State for its daily wages employees. 2 (v) That the respondents be directed to provide all the service benefits to member of applicant Union. (vi) That the member of applicant union may be held entitled for travelling allowances and daily allowances. (vii) That the member of applicant union may further be held entitled for the pension, gratuity and retirement benefits on attaining the age of superannuation. (viii) That the action of the respondents in denying the minimum wages, regularization, regular pay scale and all other service benefits to the member of applicant union may be declared illegal, void, and unconstitutional. (ix) That the respondents be directed to pay the arrears of salary/wages with interest to the member of applicant union. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the principle of equal pay for equal work, on the principle of whole time service, but part-time wages, on the principle of uninterrupted service for years etc. and in any case on the principle of minimum wages, the Panchayat Chowkidars are entitled to the reliefs, as claimed. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the Chowkiodars have been engaged only on part-time basis under Section 135 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act by the Panchayat concerned. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that enabling order is passed by the Government and appointments have been made by the Panchayat concerned. Be that as it may, it is seen from the reply that the Government has constituted various Committees from time to time and the grievances have been addressed. According to the petitioner, the grievances have not been properly addressed by the Government and service conditions 3 are still pitiable. Therefore, the petitioner may point out all these aspects incorporating all the intervening developments before the first respondent within a period of one month from today, in which case, the matter will be duly considered by the first respondent adverting to the submissions made in the representation within another four months. 3. In view of the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s) if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Ahuja ), November 10, 2010 Judge (BSS/Pankaj) 4