IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 4386/2008 Decided on:6.9.2010 _____________________________________________ Neena Sharma. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Mr. S.C. Sharma contended that since his client has worked on higher post of Clerk, she could not be regularized against the lower post of Beldar. He further contended that his client is entitled to salary/wages of the post of Clerk on the principles of “equal pay for equal work”. 2. As far as the case of petitioner for regularization to the higher post is concerned, the same is required to be considered as per the ratio of the judgment of this Court rendered 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 in Gauri Dutt and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh reported in Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366. The principles of “equal pay for equal work” can only be invoked by the petitioner, if she substantiates that she had been working as a Clerk though appointed as Beldar. 3. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of as follows: 4. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization after permitting her to give option, as per Gauri Dutt’s case (supra) within a period of four weeks from today. In case she is considered for regularization for higher post, she will be entitled to all the consequential benefits. With regard to her claim for salary/wages of Clerk, she is permitted to make a detailed representation to the Principle Secretary (PW) by referring to the pleadings as well as enclosing additional material with the representation, if available with her, within a period of three weeks from today. The representation, likely to be made by the petitioner, shall be considered by the Principal Secretary (PW) within a period of ten weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner by a speaking order. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 6.9.2010 *awasthi*