IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 10205 of 2008. Date of Decision : May 18, 2011 Smt. Shakuntla Sharma Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. D. P. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may be directed to grant the applicant the scale of Senior Clerk with effect from 1.5.94 when she was designated as Sr. Clerk together with arrears and interest thereon. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to fix the pay of the applicant with effect from 1.1.96 in the scale of Rs. 4400-7000 and designate her as Junior Assistant keeping in view the notification dated 4.7.2001 (Annexure A-7). Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (iii) That the respondents may be directed to count the adhoc service rendered by the applicant with effect from 30.5.83 to 25.3.91 for the purposes of seniority and other benefits.” 2. The claim of the petitioner is primarily based on the seniority list (Annexure A-6) circulated by the respondents which pertains to Junior Assistant/Clerk/Senior Clerk wherein, in the remarks column designation of petitioner is shown as Senior Clerk. It is not in dispute that this list was circulated in the year 1995 and the petitioner had joined as Clerk only in the year 1991 vide Annexure A-4. Respondents in their affidavit have clarified that in the remarks column the designation shown of the petitioner as Senior Clerk is by inadvertence and a clerical mistake. Mr. D. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the stand taken by the State does not appear to be correct for the reason that the said designation of Senior Clerk is not only with respect to the petitioner but also other similarly situated persons. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General, submits that the typographical error could not be corrected due to the pendency of Court cases and in fact now it would be corrected. Consequently the petitioner’s claim for higher pay scale cannot be acceded to. However, there shall be a direction to the respondents/State to correct the seniority list (Annexure P-6) with respect to all persons who have been wrongly re-designated as Senior Clerk. After complying with the rules/instructions/guidelines and principle of 3 natural justice needful shall be positively done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. 3. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 18, 2011 (PK)