IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T ) No.3163 of 2008. Date of Decision: 24.11.2010 Hem Chand …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Mr.Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) 1. The only dispute raised in this case is whether the petitioner was entitled to be regularized as Supervisor or a Mate. The petitioner’s claim is that he was working as Supervisor throughout and when his services were initially terminated on 1st August, 1990 he was working as Supervisor. 2. After the termination of the services of the petitioner he filed O.A. No.1147 of 1990 in the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. In this O.A. an interim order was passed that in the meanwhile the services of the petitioner shall be re-engaged forthwith on daily-wage 2 basis in the same capacity and at the same station at which he was working at the time of termination. 3. The petitioner was re-engaged as a Mate and he then filed a Contempt Petition before the Tribunal which was registered as Contempt Petition No.72 of 1990. Proceedings in this Contempt Petition were dropped but right was reserved to the petitioner to prove in the main case that till his termination he was working as a Supervisor. The main case itself was disposed of vide order dated 31st July, 1995 and unfortunately at that time no plea was raised on behalf of the petitioner that there was a dispute with regard to the post on which he was to be regularized. No doubt in this order the petitioner was given an opportunity to re-approach the Tribunal if he was not satisfied. However, in view of the peculiar facts of the case when the petitioner in the contempt petition had been specifically granted liberty to rake up this issue in the main case his silence at the time of final hearing means that he accepted that he was working as a Mate. 4. Be that as it may, since the petitioner again filed a petition claiming that he was working as Supervisor and should have been regularized as such and this petition has been transferred to this Court after almost 13 years, I 3 had, on the last date of hearing, directed the production of the record. After seeing all the muster-roll, I find that from 1987 to 1990 the petitioner worked against various posts. Sometimes, he was designated as Supervisor and sometimes as Mate. In between he also worked as Beldar on some occasions. But the most material muster- rolls are for the months of June and July, 1990. In both these muster-rolls he is shown to be working as Mate and had received Rs.26/- as daily wages which were the emoluments of a Mate and not a Supervisor. 5. In a writ petition one has to go by the record and one cannot decide the fact whether the petitioner was working as a Supervisor or not. On the basis of the record all that can be said is that the petitioner was working as a Mate when his services were terminated and when he was ordered to be reinstated he again worked as a Mate. Therefore, the regularization of the petitioner as a Mate is proper. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this petition which is dismissed. No costs. November 24, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) PV Judge.