IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) No.9374 of 2008 Decided on: May 27, 2011 Durga Dev Sharma ..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner, who as per record maintained by the respondents, was engaged as Beldar, on daily wages, in the year 1990, claims that in fact the work of a Clerk-cum- Typist was being taken from him from the very beginning and, therefore, he is entitled to the wages of a Clerk-cum- Typist and a direction be issued to the respondents to pay him the wages of a Clerk-cum-Typist, instead of wages of a Beldar, as are being paid to him. Also, he seeks regularization of his service, as Clerk, on completion of 8 years service, as a daily waged Clerk, instead of regularization as Beldar. Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É 2. Respondents have controverted petitioner’s claim that he was made to work as Clerk-cum-Typist. According to them, he was engaged as Beldar and occasionally, work of Typist used to be taken from him. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon an Office Order, copy Annexure A-2E, which is dated 17.2.1998, in which petitioner’s designation is shown to be that of a Clerk. This Office Order was issued by District Election Officer. By this order, certain persons, including the petitioner, who had been deployed for election duty, were relieved of their duty, with a direction to report for duty to their respective departments. 5. Aforesaid Office Order, Annexure A2E, cannot be treated as admission by the employing department of the petitioner, because it is not issued by the said department. May be that the District Election Officer took the job of a clerk from the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance upon, Annexures A-8 and A-9, two documents which he received from respondent No.2, in response to his application for supply of information, under the Right to Information Act. The two communications, Annexures A8 and A9, suggest that petitioner had been required to type 52 numbers of estimates, consisting of 769 pages from É3É 5.7.1990 to 13.3.2003. That means, during the period of 13 years, he typed only 769 pages or say, about 60 pages a year. The fact belies the claim of the petitioner that he was required to do the job of a clerk throughout the period of his employment as Beldar and supports respondents’ plea that the petitioner was required to do the job of typist, occasionally. 7. For the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed. May 27, 2011(ss) (Surjit Singh), J.