IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPT No.8452 of 2008 Decided on: August 30, 2011 Dev Dutt ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner was appointed as Contingent Cook in Mountaineering and Allied Sports Directorate, in February, 1993. According to him, one regular post of Cook fell vacant in January, 1995, and he applied for being regularized against that post, but no heed was paid to his representation. In the year 1997, two more posts of Class-IV employees became available, but a person junior to petitioner, namely Mohar Singh, belonging to scheduled caste category, was regularized against one of the aforesaid two posts. His grievance is that he being senior to Mohar Singh ought to have been considered for regular Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É appointment. Also, it is alleged by him that he had been paid @ `750/- per month, when he was a contingent paid employee upto 20.4.1999, on which date he was appointed on regular basis as a cook, while the other contingent Class-IV employees were being paid @ `770/- per month. 2. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that above-named Mohar Singh was appointed against a post reserved for scheduled caste candidate and, therefore, petitioner’s grievance is ill-founded. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. It is not in dispute that Mohar Singh was junior to petitioner. However, stand taken by the respondents is that he belonged to a scheduled caste category and was appointed against the posts reserved for scheduled caste candidate, which remained unfilled in the years 1968, 1977 and 1982 and had been carried forward. They have placed on record, copy of Roster, Annexure R-1, which shows that the posts of Class-IV employees, reserved for scheduled caste category, remained unfilled in 1968, 1977 and 1982 and such posts had been carried forward. 5. In any case, petition was filed in the year 2002 before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and by that time it had become barred by limitation. Moreover, petition was filed, after the petitioner had also been É3É regularized in April, 1999 against the post of Cook, which was unreserved. 6. For the foregoing reason, I see no merit in the claim of the petitioner that he should have been regularized in November, 1997 against the post against which above named Mohar Singh had been regularized. 7. As regards the plea that the petitioner had been paid @ `750/- per month for the period he was a contingent employee upto April, 1999, though other contingent Class-IV employees were being paid @ `770/- per month, suffice it to say that the claim of the petitioner is stale. 8. In view of the above stated position, petition is dismissed. August 30, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.