IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 4990 of 2008 Decided on : 24.11.2010 Ram Ji Dass ..…Petitioner. Versus M.C. Shimla through its Commissioner …… Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For respondent : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7(i) and (ii):- “i) pay the salary of regular Supervisor to the applicant from the current month forthwith and arrears w.e.f January, 1986 as per notifications issued by the State of HP from time to time may very kindly directed to be paid to the applicant within 3 months with interest @ 18% per annum. ii) to regularize the services of the applicant as Supervisor from the date from which the applicant started discharging the duties of the Supervisor, in the alternative, w.e.f August, 1996 when applicant completed 10 yeas service of Supervisor on daily wages basis with 240 days in every calendar year with all consequential benefits.” 2. In the reply on behalf of respondent, the following stand has been taken vide paras 6 (i) and (iii)):- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 “6(i) In reply to contents of this para it is respectfully submitted that the applicant was never engaged as Supervisor by the replying respondent. As a matter of fact he was engaged as mate and has been working as such till date. As regarding the certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer at that relevant time are of no help to the applicant as both the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer are not competent to issue certificate. Rest of the contents of this para are denied being wrong. 6(iii) That in reply to the contents of this para is respectfully submitted that vide notification Annexure A-3 the mates have passed 10th class examination and has got experience in the work of building and roads for a period of two years, his post can be re-designated as that of Road Supervisor. As far as the question of permission of the work charge staff to this post is concerned, the matter is still under consideration with the Govt. Since the services of the applicant was regularized on 28th Jan. 1998 after the completion of 10 years of service since the applicant does not have two years of service as regular mate as such Annexure A-3 is not applicable in his case. Moreover, the replying respondent has different rules than the PWD.” 3. In view of the above reply, In case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, it will be open to him to approach the respondent-Corporation by filing a representation along with additional documents, if any and copy of this judgment within one month and the said respondent shall look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law and justice after 3 affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so advised, and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed within next three months, taking into consideration the fact that a similarly situate person namely Mr. Ramesh Thakur, who was junior to the petitioner has since been regularized as Supervisor, as is apparent from the note/report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, which has been brought on record along with affidavit of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, filed in terms of order dated 22.4.2010 and also taking into consideration the certificates Annexures A-1 and A-2 to the effect that the petitioner has in fact worked as daily paid Supervisor. Needless to say that consequential benefits, if any, shall follow the decision on the representation. 4. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 24th November, 2010. Lsp*