IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 14391/2008 Decided on:16.3. 2010 _____________________________________________ Jaspal Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. yes. For the petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral) Petitioner was engaged as Electric Coolie on daily wage basis in the month of February, 1989. He was conferred with status of work charge with effect from 1.4.1998. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that though he had been working as Driver with effect from February, 1989, however, he has been given the status of work charge T-Mate with effect from 1.4.1998. According to him, he should have been regularized as Driver instead of conferring the status of T-Mate, Mr. G.R. Palsara has vehemently argued that his client had been working as a Driver since February, 1989 and he should have 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? . yes. 2 been regularized in the same capacity and he is entitled to wages of the post of Driver on the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that petitioner was engaged only as Electric Coolie initially and he has never been assigned the job of Driver. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. Petitioner was engaged as Electric Coolie on daily wage basis in the month of February, 1989. He has been given work charge status with effect from 1.4.1998. Petitioner has relied upon Annexures P-1 to P-4 to substantiate that he had been working as Driver instead of T-Mate. These documents did not establish that petitioner was working as a Driver. Petitioner had to lead tangible evidence to prove that he was working as Driver from the very inception. There are no specific orders directing the petitioner to work as Driver. Petitioner has failed to establish that he was working as a Driver. Annexure P-6 dated 25.4.2005 only talks of training to be imparted to the Drivers. Petitioner was conferred with the work charge status in the year 2000 with effect from 1.9.1998. He has filed this petition in the year 2006. The delay in filing the petition has not been explained. Since the petitioner has failed to establish that he had been working as Driver he cannot be paid the salary of the post of Driver. The principle of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be applied in abstract. There has to be factual foundation for the same. The Court has to see the mode of 3 recruitment, qualification and Recruitment and Promotion Rules while dealing with the issue of “equal pay for equal work”. The cadre of T-Mate is different and distinct from the cadre of Driver. There are different Recruitment and Promotion Rules for filling up the post of Driver. In case the petitioner was interested to be recruited as Driver, he should have applied for the same in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 16.3. 2010 *awasthi*