IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.383/2008 Reserved on 9.3.2010. Decided on:9.4.2010 _______________________________________________ Smt. Laxmi Thakur. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1yes. For the petitioner : Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr.R.K.Sharma,Sr.Addl.Advocate General With Mr.Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. _____________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was engaged as Wireless Operator on daily wages w.e.f. 12.5.1995 as is evident from Annexure:A-1 dated 20.5.1995. She has worked as Wireless Operator from 12.5.1995 till 30.6.2002 and thereafter she started performing the duties of diary and dispatch. The case of the petitioner was favourably recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer on 6.1.2005 for releasing the daily wages 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes . 2 applicable to Clerk/Wireless Operator. Petitioner was regularized as Forest Worker vide memorandum dated 21.8.2007. The case of the petitioner in a nutshell is that since she had been working as Wireless Operator/Diary-dispatcher, her services should have been regularized as Clerk instead of Forest Worker. Mr. R.K.Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the petitioner could not be regularized as Forest Worker and has supported the contents of reply. Mr. Sharma has also contended that the petitioner was appointed as daily rated Mazdoor. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. A bare perusal of Annexure:A-1 dated 20.5.1995 establishes that the petitioner was appointed as Wireless Operator w.e.f. 12.5.1995. The same position is reflected in letter dated 7th January, 2004 sent by the Divisional Forest Officer to Conservator of Forests (Projects). It is reiterated in this letter that the petitioner had been working as Wireless Operator till 30.6.2002 and she was also performing the duties of diary and dispatch since 23.5.2001. The Divisional Forest Officer on 6.1.2005 has again reiterated that the petitioner had been working as Wireless Operator/diary dispatcher since her engagement on 12.5.1995. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal 3 Pradesh has called upon the District Forest Officer on 17th February, 2005 to give certain clarifications. The Divisional Forest Officer sent a communication to the Conservator Forest (Project) on 14.6.2006. He reiterated that the petitioner was working in diary- dispatch section due to shortage of ministerial staff, though she was paid daily wage of Rs.70/- per day as applicable to the Mazdoor. What emerges from the material placed on record is that the petitioner was appointed as Wireless Operator and she has continuously worked in this capacity till 30.6.2002. She also started working in diary-dispatch section w.e.f. 23.5.2001. She had continuously worked in the same capacity as per Annexure:A-6 till 14.6.2006. In these circumstances, the petitioner was required to be regularized as Clerk and not as Forest Worker. The action of the respondents of regularizing the petitioner as Forest Worker and not as a Clerk is declared arbitrary and illegal. The respondent-State is a welfare State. It cannot exploit the person like petitioner by initially extracting the work of higher post and then regularizing her on a lower post. The stand taken by the respondents in the reply that the petitioner was engaged as daily rated mazdoor is belied from the material placed on record by the petitioner. The petitioner has worked for 12 years as Wireless Operator/diary-dispatch section and her services were 4 liable to be regularized as Clerk. She has also not been paid the wages of higher post of Wireless Operator/Clerk. She is also held entitled to higher wages of the post of Wireless Operator/Clerk from her initial appointment i.e. 12.5.1995 onwards. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Wireless Operator/Clerk with all consequential benefits within a period of eight weeks from today. The respondents are further directed to pay the petitioner’s higher wages of Wireless Operator/Clerk w.e.f. 12.5.1995 with interest @ 9% per annum within a period of eight weeks from today. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. April 9, 2010(R)