IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 410 of 2008. Decided on: 24.07.2008. H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd. … … Petitioner. Versus Kundan Lal and Others. … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For Respondents No.2 and 3: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent No.1 has filed a petition under Section 72 of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh seeking following reliefs:- (i) Regularize the services of the petitioner as Clerk. (ii) To pay the wages of a Clerk right from the initial appointment on the principle of equal pay for equal work alongwith arrears with interest @12% P.A. (iii) Any other and further order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, be also passed in favour of the petitioner. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - The petitioner-Bank filed the detailed reply to the petition field by the respondent No.1 before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh. The Joint Registrar (Marketing), Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh made the award on 25.4.2006. The petitioner-Bank filed an appeal under Section 93(H) of the H.P. State Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 against the order dated 25.4.2006 before the Secretary (Cooperation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The appeal was dismissed by the Secretary (Cooperation) on 10.10.2007. The petitioner-Bank has assailed the orders passed by the Joint Registrar (Marketing) Cooperative Societies, dated 25.4.2006 and the order passed in appeal by the Secretary (Cooperation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 10.10.2007 by way of this petition. Mr. Shrawan Dogra had strenuously argued that the orders dated 25.4.2006 and 10.10.2007 passed by the Joint Registrar (Marketing) Cooperative Societies and Secretary (Cooperation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh respectively are not sustainable in the eyes of law. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan has supported the above orders. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. The case set up by the respondent No.1 in his petition under Section 72 of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 precisely was that he has been appointed as part time worker in the month of February, 2001. However, in fact, the employer had been taking the work of Clerk from him. He has sought his regularization as Clerk and wages of a Clerk on the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. - 3 - The gist of the reply filed by the petitioner-Bank to the petition was that the respondent-workman had only been discharging the duties of a Sweeper and he has not been assigned the duties of a Clerk and it has also come in the reply that the petitioner had never compelled the respondent No.1 to do any clerical work. In case he has voluntarily offered his services to do any clerical work within his working hours in that event the principle of “equal pay for equal work” would not be applicable. The respondent No.1 had filed the detailed rejoinder stating therein that immediately after his appointment; he was posted in the District Office where he was performing the duties of diary and despatch. It is also evident from the contents of Annexure R-2, dated 5.2.2004 that there is a practice prevalent in the Bank of entrusting the duties of Clerks to the part-time workers. The Joint Registrar (Marketing) on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, vide his award dated 25.4.2006, had come to a definite conclusion that, in fact, the respondent No.1 had been discharging the duties of a Clerk. The petitioner-Bank has preferred an appeal as noticed above against this order. The Appellate Authority by passing a speaking and reasoned order has affirmed the findings recorded by the Joint Registrar (Marketing). The orders passed by both the authorities, i.e. the Joint Registrar (Marketing), Cooperative Societies and the Appellate Authority are in consonance with law. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity in the orders passed by both the authorities. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, before parting with the judgment, it is made clear that it will be open to the Bank to consider the case of the respondent No.1 for regularization in case the respondent No.1 foregoes his claim for - 4 - arrears of salary as granted by the Joint Registrar (Marketing), Cooperative Societies vide order dated 25.4.2006. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge. July 24, 2008. (sck).