IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 1 of 2009 (OA No. 371 of 1996) Date of decision: 2.1.2010 Nandi Ram ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G with Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. A.G and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant A.G. _______________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge( Oral) This petition was filed in the year 1996 in the erstwhile Tribunal which has been abolished; thereafter the petition has been transferred to this Court. The petitioner in the petition has prayed that respondents may be directed to regularize the petitioner as a clerk w.e.f. 1976 with all consequential benefits like seniority and back wages. He has also prayed that respondents may be directed to pay minimum pay scale of the clerk to the petitioner to which he is entitled on the basis of equal pay for equal work w.e.f. 1976. 2. The respondents have filed their reply and have contested the petition. Annexure R-II is the manday’s chart of work of petitioner. There is no reason to disbelieve Annexure R-II. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… The perusal of Annexure R-II indicates that petitioner was engaged beldar in the year 1976 and he continued to work on various jobs upto 1990. The petitioner as per manday’s chart has lastly worked as store munshi from 1985 to 1990. The petitioner has been made work-charged beldar w.e.f. 25.4.1990. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any Rule, Regulation, Scheme and Policy under which the petitioner is entitled to regularization as clerk w.e.f. 1976, nor it has been pointed out from unimpeachable evidence that petitioner in fact had worked as clerk w.e.f. 1976. Once the petitioner had not worked as clerk w.e.f. 1976, therefore, there is no question of payment of wages of clerk to the petitioner from 1976 onwards. 3. The last contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had worked as store munshi w.e.f. 1976. The wages of store munshi are equal to that of clerk, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to minimum wages of clerk on the basis of equal pay for equal work. The learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General has submitted that in para 6(ii) of the reply the respondents have taken a specific stand that the petitioner has been paid wages of store munshi for the period he worked as store munshi. Thus taken from any angle the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of any relief to petitioner as prayed in the petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. January 2, 2010 ( Kuldip Singh ) (sks) Judge. …3…