31.3.2009 Present: Ms. Sulochna Kaundal, vice counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A. G. with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A. G. and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. for the respondents. CWP(T) 3741/2008 (OA No. 1190/96) It is the grievance of the petitioner that even though he was employed as daily wage Tracer/Junior Draftsman but however, he was paid wages of a Beldar. As such, the difference in the wages from the period 16.4.1989 upto 31.3.1995 are claimed in the present petition. The petitioner is also seeking employment on regular basis as Tracer/Junior Draftsman. The respondents have clarified that no work of Tracer was available in the field, hence, instead of retrenching the petitioner, he offered to work as Beldar after 1995. The petitioner has been working as such and receiving salary in accordance with the instructions issued by the Govt. from time to time. But, however, the respondents have admitted the fact that petitioner was employed as Tracer w.e.f. 1.8.1991 to 31.3.1995 but enhanced wages were not paid to him as he had not been recruited through the Employment Exchange. The petitioner has admittedly worked as Tracer/Junior Draftsman. He has been satisfactorily discharging his duties. He was eligible for appointment on the said post, hence, simply because he was not recruited through the Employment Exchange at the relevant point in time would not deprive him of the wages which were prescribed for the post of Tracer at the relevant time. Undisputedly, the work done by him is identical and equal. Admittedly, there is a difference in the wages, hence, the respondents are directed to pay the difference in the wages as applicable to Tracer/Draftsman from the period 1.8.1991 upto 31.3.1995. In taking this view, I am supported by the decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Talwinder Singh & Ors. {2003(11) SCC 776}. The payment shall be made within a period of 12 weeks from today, failing which thereafter, the petitioner shall be entitled for interest @ 6%. Insofar as the petitioner’s prayer of regularization is concerned, the same cannot be considered as the respondents have clarified that the selection to the post is now done by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. The petition is disposed of accordingly. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. March 31, 2009 (rana)