IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.: 5891 of 2008 Date of decision: 18.8.2010 Mrs.Suman Verma … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Surrender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl.A.G. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner by means of this petition has prayed for the grant of the following reliefs:- (i) That the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the applicant as a Clerk with effect from August, 1987 with all consequential benefits, like arrears of salary, seniority, etc. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to modify the impugned office order dated April 23, 1999 (Annexure A-1) to the extent the applicant be regualrised as a Clerk, instead of Beldar. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she was shown in the muster roll as Beldar, she was 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 actually made to perform the duties of Clerk. In fact, this point is no longer in dispute since it is admitted before me that the petitioner had also approached the Labour Court for grant of the daily wages of a clerk on the principle of equal pay for equal work and the wages for the period which she worked as clerk have been ordered to be released in her favour. Therefore, relief No.1 as claimed has become infructuous. 3. As far as the relief No.2 is concerned, the prayer of the petitioner is that she should be ordered to be regularized as Clerk and not as Beldar. The petitioner has been regularized as Beldar following the judgement of the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp(2) SCC 316. The policy which was framed pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court in the said case and approved by the Apex Court does not at all deal with regularization of clerks and only deals with regularization of workman. If the respondents were taking work of a higher post the petitioner was entitled to get wages of that posts which have already been paid to her but she could not claim regularization on that post. Therefore, the petition is rejected. No order as to costs. 18th August, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.