IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 3907 of 2008 Decided on : 24.11.2010 Ram Rattan Thakur ..…Petitioner. Versus M.C. Shimla through its Commissioner …… Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For respondent : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7(i) and (ii):- “i) That to pay the salary of a regular Supervisor to the applicant from the current month onwards forthwith and arrears w.e.f January, 1986 as per the notification issued by the State of HP from time to time may very kindly directed to be paid to the applicant within a period of 3 months, with interest @ 18% per annum. ii) Directions may very kindly be issued to the respondent to regularize the services of the applicant as Supervisor from the date from which the applicant started discharging the duties of the Supervisor, to secure the ends of justice.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 2. In the reply on behalf of respondent, the following stand has been taken vide paras 6 (1) and 6 (5A&B)):- “6(1) That the contents of this para are vehemently denied to the extent that the applicant has ever discharged the duties of mate/Supervisor. It is most respectfully submitted that the applicant was engaged as Beldar in the year 1986 on Muster Roll basis. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant ahs been receiving the wags of the Beldars since 1986 without raising any objections whatsoever. It is relevant to submit here that as per Annexure A-2 alongwith O.A is concerned, the replying respondent has been requesting the applicant time and again to supply the original copy o certificate issued by the Officers of Corporation. But till date the same has not been supplied for the reasons best known to applicant. However the replying respondent has taken appropriate steps by issuing notices to the officers who have issued Annexure A-2 for explaining on what circumstances the same has been issued against the record of Replying Respondent. As according to the record maintained by the replying respondent the applicant is working as Beldar since his very initial engagement. 6(5A&B) That the contents of these paras of the O.A are denied being wrong. It is most respectfully submitted by replying respondent that the applicant is working as Beldar/mate on muster Roll basis and is being accordingly paid the wages of Beldar/mate. In view of submissions made above the question of paying the wages of Supervisor does not arise as the applicant ahs never discharged the duties of Supervisor/mate as alleged by him.” 3 3. In view of the above reply, In case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, it will be open to him to approach the respondent-Corporation by filing a representation along with additional documents, if any and copy of this judgment within one month and the said respondent shall look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law and justice after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so advised, and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed within next three months taking into consideration the fact that a similarly situate person Mr. Ramesh Thakur, who was junior to the petitioner has since been regularized as Supervisor, as is apparent from the note/report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, which has been brought on record along with affidavit of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, filed in terms of order dated 22.4.2010 passed by this Court in the connected petition {CWP(T) No. 4990 of 2008 (OA No. 501 of 1998)} and also taking into consideration the certificate Annexure A-2 to the effect that the petitioner has in fact worked as daily paid Supervisor. Needless to say that consequential benefits, if any, shall follow the decision on the representation. 4. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 24th November, 2010. 4 Lsp*