IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 5395 of 2008 Date of decision: 27.10.2010. Deepak Sharma ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. and ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Banbhushan vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- i) To regularize the services of the applicant as J.E. forthwith without any further delay. ii) Directions may be issued to the respondents to start paying the wages of J.E. the work being extracted by the applicant from the respondents. iii) Directions may be issued to the respondents to pay the arrears of wages to the applicant from the date of his initial engagement with interest @18% per annum within the period as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Tribunal. 2. In para-2 of the reply, it is stated as follows: “ That the present application is not maintainable as no legal and fundamental rights of the applicant have ever been infringed in any manner. This being so because the applicant was initially engaged in the respondent Department on 1/90 under respondent No. 4 as Assistant - 2 - Foreman (Electrical) he worked upto 4/94 as Assistant Foreman (Electrical) on M/ Roll basis. Thereafter, he was engaged as Foreman (Electrical) and performed the duties of Foreman (Electrical) w.e.f. 1.5.94 and is continuing to do the same work up till now. The mandays details of the applicant category-wise is annexed as Annexure R-1. It is denied that the applicant has ever done/ conducted the work of Junior Engineer under respondents. As far as the official capacity is concerned that applicant as per M/ Roll has worked only as a Assistant Foreman and Foreman as per detail Annexure R-I and he had also been paid accordingly for the category he had actually worked during period of his engagement. Therefore, in the present case neither the principle of equal pay for equal work has been violated nor there is any violation of any legal or fundamental rights of the applicant. Moreover, upon the relaxation of policy by the respondent State whereby instead of completing 10 years of continuous service now 9 years continuous service has been prescribed for regularization purpose of daily waged class upto 31.3.98 under which the case of the applicant stood also referred to the higher authorities for his regularization as Foreman. As and when sanction shall be received, his services may also be regularized accordingly. Even otherwise there is no violation of principle of “Equal pay for equal work” because his engagement has earlier as Assistant Foreman thereafter Foreman for which he had received his payment without any protest till day. Since the applicant had never worked as Junior Engineer as such how his claim for Junior Engineer is maintainable is not known. As such the applicant has no cause of action, therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed on this score also.” 3. In sur-rejoinder, it is stated as follows:- - 3 - “ The designation of foreman is very much exists in electrical wing of H.P. PWD (Copy Annex R-I) enclosed. The petitioner was engaged at 1st instance as Assistant Foreman as per requirement of work on daily wages and was never given any assurance for regularization on the post of Junior Engineer, as claimed by the petitioner. It is baseless that the applicant worked as Junior Engineer. Merely by copying the estimates under the guidance/direction of Junior Engineer/drawing branch does not mean that the petitioner had been/has been working as Junior Engineer, therefore claim for the duties of Junior Engineer is not admitted. The duties of Junior Engineer as per manual is (Annex. R-II). The records as desired in the petition will be produced in the Hon’ble Court as and when desired.” 4. In view of factual and legal position, as explained above, in case the petitioner has still any grievance left, he may approach the 2nd respondent, in which case, the matter will be duly considered by the 2nd respondent and appropriate action will be taken in accordance with law and justice with notice to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner. 5. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. October 27, 2010. (Justice Kuldip Singh), (Hem/pankaj) Judge.