IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 5398 of 2008. Decided on: 27.07.2010 Shyam Pal Shukla …Petitioner -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?. No __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. R.S. Gautam, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : The petitioner has worked as Assistant Tracer Draftsman w.e.f. 27.06.1996 till August, 1998. However, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent be directed to consider his case for the appointment of the Tracer Draftsman. The petitioner has also claimed the salary w.e.f. 27.06.1996 till August, 1998 on the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. 2. A bare perusal of the document placed on record reveals that the petitioner has worked as Tracer Draftsman and he is entitled for salary for the period w.e.f. 27.06.1996 to August, 1998. However, as far as the appointment of the petitioner as Tracer Draftsman is concerned, the Court is of the considered view that this can only be done as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Consequently, the respondent is directed to pay the salary to the petitioner for the whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No -2- period w.e.f. 27.06.1996 to August, 1998 on the principle of “equal pay for equal work” , within a period of ten weeks from today. The respondent shall also consider the case of the petitioner, if found eligible and qualified as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules, for the post of Tracer Draftsman, as and when the vacancy arises. 3. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge July 27, 2010 (K. Attri)