IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 3424/2008 Reserved on: 16.6.2010 Decided on:21.6. 2010 _____________________________________________ Virender Kumar. …Petitioner. Versus 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. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P.Singh,Asstt. A.G. for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.3. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis as Surveyor in the respondent-corporation on 1.10.1974. He worked in this capacity till 14.6.1977. Thereafter he was engaged on temporary basis with effect from 15.6.1977. The Corporation has taken a decision to assign the duties of Waste Inspection Officer to the petitioner vide resolution dated 11.7.1980. He was appointed on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 regular basis as Surveyor vide order dated 31.10.1981. State Government has taken a decision to encadre the technical posts of Corporation with Public Works Department vide notification dated 28.1.1988. However, the petitioner was permitted to work upto 9.7.1990. Petitioner approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 2717/1994. The learned Tribunal disposed of the petition by treating original application as representation to be decided by the Engineer-in-Chief. Engineer- in-Chief decided the representation vide detailed order dated 17.4.1996. The Engineer-in-Chief has held the petitioner entitled to confirmation from the due date. He was also permitted to cross efficiency bar from the due date. Petitioner was repatriated to State Government on 9.7.1990. Mr. Yudghvir Singh Thakur appearing vice counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner should have been regularized as Junior Engineer with effect from 11.7.1980. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Shrawan Dogra have vehemently argued that services of the petitioner cannot be regularized as Junior Engineer and the Engineer-in-Chief has already granted him the relief and so far as the granting of deputation allowance is concerned, the same was paid to the petitioner by the respondent-corporation, i.e. Rs. 50/- per month. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 3 Petitioner has worked on daily wage basis as Surveyor with effect from 1.10.1974 to 14.6.1977. Thereafter he has worked on temporary basis till his regular appointment on 31.10.1981. He had been assigned the duties of Waste Inspection Officer vide resolution dated 11.7.1980. A decision had been taken by the State Government to encadre the technical posts of the Corporation with Public Works Department vide decision dated 21.1.1988. Petitioner was permitted to work even after the decision dated 21.1.1988 with respondent-corporation till 9.7.1990. Petitioner has not placed any tangible material on record to establish that he was discharging the duties of Junior Engineer. The posts of Surveyor/Waste Inspection Officer and Junior Engineer are different posts. Petitioner cannot be regularized as Junior Engineer only on the ground that the pay scale of Waste Inspection Officer and Junior Engineer was the same, i.e. Rs. 700- 1200. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had been appointed as Junior Engineer with effect from 1.10.1974 onwards. He had been appointed as Surveyor initially on daily wage basis and was consequently regularized as Surveyor. The grievance of the petitioner as far as confirmation and crossing of efficiency bar is concerned, the same stood redressed on the basis of the order passed by the Engineer-in-Chief dated 17.4.1996. Mr. Yudghvir Singh Thakur has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure A-4 dated 9.7.1990 to substantiate that his client was working as Junior Engineer. I have gone through the contents of Annexure A-4 dated 9.7.1990. Petitioner has only been asked 4 vide order dated 26.6.1990 to handover his complete charge to Shri Ashok Rana, Junior Engineer. The fact that he has been directed to handover the charge to Sh. Ashok Rana, Junior Engineer will not prove that petitioner had been working as Junior Engineer. Mr. Shrawan Dogra has also drawn the attention of the Court to letter dated 29.12.1982 whereby the petitioner was restrained from making MB entries though he was allowed to look after the work of Water Supply. The appointment to the post of Junior Engineer is regulated under separate Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The qualifications and mode of recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer is laid down as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The qualifications to the post of Junior Engineers are higher vis-à- vis Surveyor. In these circumstances also, petitioner cannot be held entitled to be regularized as Junior Engineer from the date he started discharging the duties of Waste Inspection Officer. No other point was urged. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 21.6. 2010 *awasthi*