IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPT No.4812 of 2008 Date of decision : August 10, 2010 Balak Ram …Petitioner. Versus Dr. Y.S. Parmar University …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the grant of the following amongst other reliefs: 1. That the Respondent-University may be directed to pay him the wages of Steno Typist from September, 1986 till 26.12.1989. 2. That the Respondent-University may be directed to pay the wages of Computer Operator to the petitioner from 26.12.1989 till date. 3. That the respondent-University may be directed to pay him the daily wages of Steno-Typist/Computer Operator till his services are regularised as such. 4. That the Respondent-University may be directed to regularise the services of the petitioner in the post of Steno- Typist/Computer Operator since he has completed more than 10 years of continuous service. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. …2… 5. That the Respondent-University may be directed to pay the arrears of salary as admissible to him as Steno-Typist/ Computer Operator. 6. That the respondent-University may be directed to pay interest @ 18% P.A. on the arrears of salary from 1986 till the actual payment. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has been regularised as Chowkidar, though he was working as Steno-typist/Computer Operator. His regularisation is not a matter of dispute in this case. So, that issue cannot be gone into in this Writ Petition. 3. Petitioner had originally filed a writ petition for grant of similar reliefs in this Court, which was numbered as CWP No.1845 of 1996. The Division Bench of this Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable in the High Court and directed the petitioner to approach the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, on 22nd September, 1997. Thereafter, the present petition was filed. 4. So far as relief No.1 is concerned, the same is much beyond limitation. Even the original writ petition was filed in this Court only in the year 1996. The petitioner cannot claim any relief prior to three years of the filing of the writ petition. 5. The main allegation of the petitioner is that on 26th December, 1989 he joined as daily-waged Chowkidar but he actually worked as Steno-typist and thereafter he has worked as Computer Operator. In support of his allegation, …3… the petitioner has placed on record certificates to show that he is qualified to work as Steno-typist and Computer Operator. Even the Chief Scientific Officer of the respondent-University has issued a certificate, on 12th October, 1989 that the petitioner is a very good Typist and is doing good typing work. Similar certificates were issued by various officials of the University on 30th September, 1991, 15th March, 1994 and 10th August, 1994. In fact the last certificate dated 10th August, 1994 reads as follows: “TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that on the advise of the Chief Scientist, Regional Horticultural Research Station, Mashobra, the written, shorthand and typing test for the post of Steno-cum-typist was conducted in September, 1986 as there was no regular steno posted at this station. Seven candidates appeared in the test and after thorough scrutiny and examination Sh. Balak Ram S/o Sh. Nirma Ram got highest position and Miss Prem Lata Verma was at second position. Sh. Balak Ram was asked to join this office on daily wages. He has been working at this position from September, 1986.” This certificate itself shows that written test, shorthand test and typing test for the post of Steno-typist were conducted and the petitioner got highest position in the test. However, since there was no regular post of steno-typist available, he was engaged as Chowkidar. …4… 6. From the documents available on record, it is apparent that the petitioner initially did typing work and thereafter continued to work as Computer Operator. Petitioner was not appointed through the back-door but after a test was conducted. It is not expected of an employer, like the University, to take work from a person of higher post and to give him wages of the lower post. 7. Since there is sufficient material on record to show that the petitioner had worked as Computer Operator from 1993 onwards, it is directed that he be paid daily wages, which were payable at the relevant time in the case of Computer Operator, w.e.f. 1st July, 1993 till the date of his regularization. The date of 1st July, 1993 has been fixed because the original petition was filed in the year 1996. The arrears of wages be worked out and paid to the petitioner, alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum, on or before 15th December, 2010. Needless to say if any amount has been paid to the petitioner for his typing work over and above the daily wages, the same may be adjusted. In case the amount of arrears is not paid on or before 15th December, 2010, the respondent-University shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. August 10, 2010(sd) ( Deepak Gupta ), J