IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No. 207 of 2010 Date of Decision: 8th March, 2011 State of Himachal Pradesh and others Appellants Versus Nirmala Devi Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Kurian Joseph,C.J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellants: Mr.Ankush D.Sood, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. H.K.Paul, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Appellants, who are respondents in the original petition, have filed this petition against the judgment dated 13.5.2010 passed in CWP(T) No. 6869 of 2008, titled as Smt. Nirmala Devi vs. State of H.P. and others. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. Facts are short, simple and mostly undisputed. 3. Though Petitioner (respondent herein), was initially engaged as Beldar, but she continued to perform her duties as a Typist since the date of her Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 engagement i.e. 2.11.1987. That she performed the duties of higher post including that of a Typist stands substantiated from the certificates dated 23.6.1989 and 28.2.1991 issued by the respondents- authorities themselves. In fact respondents admit that with effect from 28.2.1991 till 3.1.1998 petitioner performed her duties as a Typist. The Chief Conservator (Projects) vide letter dated 29.11.1997 also clarified that petitioner has knowledge of English/Hindi typewriting. CWP No.1002 of 1992 filed by the petitioner claiming wages of the post of Clerk, stood decided by this Court in terms of judgment dated 21.3.1996 wherein it was held that petitioner is entitled to daily wages of a Typist w.e.f. 28.2.1991. That the order was complied with is not in dispute. However, while regularizing her services, appellant-authorities did not take into account the attending circumstances and regularized her only as a Peon in terms of order dated 3.1.1998. Aggrieved thereof, she again approached the Court, which has resulted into the present proceedings. 4. In our considered view, learned Single Judge has rightly taken into account the earlier decision of this Court as also various certificates issued by the authorities in support of the petitioner’s claim for regularization as a Clerk/ Typist, instead of Peon. Before the learned Single Judge, it was not disputed 3 that inspite of being regularized as a Peon, petitioner is still continuing to discharge her duties as a Typist/Clerk. In the instant case, right from the date of her engagement, petitioner has been discharging the duties as Typist. Consequently, instructions dated 12.12.1997 and 16.12.1997, rightly have been held to be inapplicable in the instant case. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal is dismissed. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice 8th March, 2011 (Justice Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.