IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 1770 of 2008 Date of Decision : August 31 , 2011 Sh. Madho Ram Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondent : Mr. R. M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for respondent No. 1. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the orders dated 16.7.2007 vide Annexure A-1, regularizing/giving work charged appointment to the applicant as beldar, with immediate effect, when the applicant is entitled for benefit from 1.1.2001 as per the law in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya and Gehar Singh may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to given the work charged status/regularization to the applicant as beldar in the pay scale of Rs. 2620 – 4140 w.e.f. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 1.1.2001 as per the law in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya, Gehar Singh & Gauri Dutts case, as implemented by the Govt. on 14/ 18.2.2008 also, with all pay fixation benefits including arrears & seniority etc. forthwith. (iii) That in the alternative the respondents may be directed to give the work charged status or regularization to the applicant as a clerk on /w.e.f. the date of completion of 10 years as clerk on which he had worked for longer duration as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in case of Sohan Singh & Gauri Dutt’ case, in the pay scale of Rs. 3120 – 5160, with pay fixation and arrears with all consequential benefits forthwith. (iv) That any other relief’s deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. (v) That the records may be called for & the costs of the application may also be granted.” 2. According to the petitioner he was engaged as a Beldar on 17.5.1990 whereas according to the respondent it was some time in the year 1991. It is however not disputed that petitioner was engaged as a Clerk w.e.f. 1.3.1999. Petitioner states that even w.e.f. 1.1.1991 he was assigned duties of a Clerk and officiated as such till 1.3.1999. In support thereof he has relied upon certificates (Annexures A-3 to A-5). Respondents have disputed this fact by placing on record man days chart. 3. It is also not in dispute that even though w.e.f. 16.7.2007 petitioner stands regularized as a Beldar on work charged basis but 3 in fact even thereafter he has been discharging duties of a Clerk till date. As such petitioner is entitled to wages of a Clerk at least for this undisputed period. 4. The dispute is only with regard to the period between 1.1.1991 and 1.3.1999. Certificates (Annexures A-3 to A-5) have been issued by officials of respondent No. 1. As such respondent No. 2 shall verify the correctness and genuineness of the same and take a decision with regard to the duties which the petitioner had been discharging during this period. If it is ultimately found that petitioner has been discharging duties of a Clerk, respondents shall take all action of disbursing wages of a Clerk due and admissible, in accordance with law, to the petitioner. 5. With regard to the relief of regularization/work charged status, petitioner claims that his case is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in Gauri Dutt and others versus State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366. This aspect shall also be looked into by the respondents and if found to be true respondents shall seek petitioner’s option, and if he so opts, take a decision of according work charged status /regularizing him as a Clerk after completion of ten years of continuous service w.e.f. 1.3.1999. The same shall be done by taking into account the ratio of law laid down in Gauri Dutt (supra). However, in case the petitioner is otherwise eligible to be regularized from an earlier date as Clerk in terms of subsequent policies of regularization, his case shall also be considered on completion of eight years of service. Needful shall be 4 done within a period of three months from date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. Monetary benefits, if any, found due and admissible shall also be disbursed to the petitioner during the aforesaid period, failing which thereafter, petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, which shall be personally recovered from the erring official(s). 6. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 31 , 2011 (PK)