IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 2629 of 2008. Decided on: 3.7.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Deep Ram … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Sood, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, A.A.G. __________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The petitioner was appointed as daily waged Typist in the respondent-department with effect from 15.9.1992. He has also sworn an affidavit dated 1.8.1992 to the effect that he will take only the wages at the rate of Rs. 22/- per day. Mr. S.S. Sood, Advocate has strenuously argued that the petitioner was working as Typist from September 1992, however, he has been denied the wages paid to a daily waged Typist. He further contended that his client was initially paid Rs. 22/- per day, however, the same was subsequently increased to Rs. 45.75 paise per day but he was not paid wages at the rate of Rs. 65/- per day. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner was not entitled 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 to daily wages at the rate of Rs. 65/- per day on the basis of an affidavit filed by him on 1.8.1992. I have heard the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. The petitioner was appointed as daily waged Typist with effect from 15.9.1992. He was paid the wages that of a Beldar i.e. Rs. 22/- per day. He made several representations to the respondents to grant him wages of a Typist. His representation was rejected on 16.10.1998. The respondents in their reply have not specifically denied about the engagement of the petitioner as Typist. The case of the respondents further is that he was permitted to work as Typist taking into consideration his qualification. This stand of the respondent-State is belied by the letter dated 27.5.2002 sent by the Executive Engineer, I&PH Division, Nerwa to the Superintending Engineer, I&PH Circle, Rohru. The Executive Engineer has specifically informed the Superintending Engineer, I&PH Circle, Rohru that the petitioner was deployed as daily waged Typist with effect from 15.9.1992. However, he was paid the rate given to a Beldar i.e. Rs. 22/- per day. The Typist was entitled to daily wages at the rate of Rs. 65/- per day. The conclusion which can safely be drawn from letter dated 27.5.2002 is that the petitioner was in fact appointed as daily waged Typist and not Beldar as projected by the respondents in their reply. He has worked as Typist and was entitled to the wages paid to a Typist i.e. Rs. 65/- per day. The Superintending Engineer has also sent a communication to the Chief Engineer (South), I&PH Department on 3 30.5.2002 specifically stating therein that the petitioner was offered to engage for typist’s work at the rate of Rs. 22/- per day. It is also clear from the pleadings of the parties that the petitioner was put to Typing test and only thereafter, he was permitted to work as Typist. The Executive Engineer in his communication dated 27.5.2002 has also endorsed that the petitioner has qualified the typing test. In these circumstances, the action of the respondent not to grant wages of the Typist to the petitioner is arbitrary. The petitioner has right to get the wages commensurating his work. Since the petitioner has worked as Typist, he is entitled to daily wages paid to the Typist. The filing of affidavit cannot constitute estoppel or waiver against the lowly paid employee like the petitioner. The person appointed on daily wages basis has limited choice and he cannot be made to suffer on the basis of an affidavit about whose consequences he has no legal knowledge. The act of the respondent of getting the affidavit from the petitioner is also arbitrary and is outcome of unequal bargaining power. The State shall resist from adopting these draconian measures to defeat the limited rights of the workman. The workman is also to be given due dignity and his rights should at least be protected by the State Government being a model employer. Ours is a welfare State and its actions must conform to the constitutional philosophy. The petitioner is entitled to get daily wages at the rate of Rs. 65/- per day for discharging the duties of a Typist with effect from September, 1992. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant 4 the petitioner wages at the rate of Rs. 65/- per day from due date. He will also be entitled to revision of daily wages effected from time to time. The amount already paid to the petitioner shall be adjusted. The respondents are further directed to pay the petitioner enhanced wages within a period of six weeks from today. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 3, 2009. (cr)