IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 13614 of 2008. Decided on: 27.4.2010. __________________________________________________ Shri Ramesh Chand … Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, and Mr. K.C. Sankhyan, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The case of the petitioner is that he was initially engaged as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Ghaloon, Education Block, Nadaun, District Hamirpur (HP) through Parent Teachers Association (PTA) and the concerned Gram Panchayat in January, 1996. According to him, he worked as such to the best of his ability and to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. However, even despite that the respondent-Department appointed another lady, Smt. Kesro Devi at his place in the year 1999. Such action on the part of the respondents was challenged by the petitioner before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal (since abolished) by way of O.A. No. 2 of 1999. It was during the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 course of such proceedings, the Original Application filed by the petitioner was ordered to be treated as representation to respondent No.3, the Deputy Director, Primary Education, Hamirpur (HP) which was ultimately granted, vide office order, dated 12.5.2005, Annexure AR-1, with effect from 16.5.2005. Against the above backdrop, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs: i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to regularise the services of the applicant with effect from due dates with all consequential benefits. ii) That the applicant may also be held entitled for the payment of salary in the pay scale of Class-IV employees. iii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the applicant for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal. iv) Any other relief as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the applicant. Insofar as the services rendered by the petitioner as Part Time Water Carrier as PTA appointee from January 1996 to 1999 are concerned, there was interruption in the interregnum during the period he was disengaged and when ultimately his representation came to be accepted vide office order, dated 12.5.2005, Annexure AR-1. Even otherwise, such services were 3 rendered by the petitioner as PTA appointee and not under the respondents. However, even if such services can be counted in accordance with the Scheme, Rules and law applicable in the matter, the same shall be liable to be taken into consideration by the respondents. Now, while adverting to the second stretch of engagement/appointment of the petitioner as Part Time Water Carrier vide the aforesaid office order, dated 12.5.2005, Annexure AR-1 with effect from 16.5.2005, it would be seen that he is to complete five years of such service only on 15.5.2010. This period shall also be liable to be considered for conversion of the engagement of the petitioner on Part Time basis to that of a Daily Wager only in accordance with the aforesaid Scheme, Rules and law. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the year 1995 when the petitioner was initially engaged as Part Time Water Carrier under the PTA scheme, monthly honorarium was Rs. 100/- per month. Later on, it was raised to Rs. 750/- per month in the year 2005 and then to Rs. 1,000/-. Thereafter, with effect from 1.1.2008, the payment was converted into Rs. 13/- per hour for four hours per day. At present, it is at the rate of Rs. 14.50 per hour for four hours per day with effect from 1.3.2009. It goes without saying that the petitioner would be entitled and shall be paid at the rates fixed by the respondents from time to time and if any less payment has been made to him, the same shall be liable to be made good from due date(s). 4 In view of the above, it is directed as under: i) The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for conversion of his appointment as Part Time Water Carrier into the one on Daily Wages, if otherwise found eligible, in accordance with the aforesaid Scheme, Rules and law. ii) He shall also be paid the difference of wages, if any, to which he is found entitled for the period 1.1.2008 onwards in case he has not been paid full wages during this period along with interest at the rate of Rs. 6/- per cent per annum within sixty days from today in accordance with the said Scheme, Rules and law. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, pending CMPs, if any, shall also stand disposed of as infructuous. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. April 27, 2010. (cr)