IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 9041 of 2008 Decided on : 27.04.2.2011 Om Prakash ..… Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …… Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) Though the petition has been filed for grant of twofold reliefs vide para 7 (i) and (ii), yet at the time of hearing it has been restricted only qua the first relief, which is as under:- “The respondents be directed to pay the difference of wages of Beldar and Supervisor for the period of 10/10/1996 and 31/12/2000,which wages were revised from time to time. This difference be directed to be paid with interest at the penal rate.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 2. In reply on behalf of the respondents, which is lying in Part-B of the case file, the following stand has been taken vide para 6 (b):- “In reply to this para it is submitted that as per the requirement of work the applicant was engaged as Supervisor w.e.f. 12-6-91 and as such he worked up to 30-6-92. Thereafter he was asked to work as Beldar i.e. in the capacity in which he had worked earlier during 21-12-89 to 7-6-91 on completion of plantation work. The applicant did not agree to it i.e. to work as Beldar and left the job at his own will. As such no termination of the services of the applicant was done by the respondent department.” 3. It is further contended as under in reply to the miscellaneous application for amendment vide para 2 on merits:- “The contents are denied on record. However the amendment at this belated stage is not justified. The amendment would amount to changing the nature of the O.A and would amount to introducing a new case altogether, where since claim was not agitated by the applicant “claiming seniority as supervisor for the period from 10.10.96 till the decision of review on 6.9.2000 and its implementation on 1.1.01 instead of beldar in which category he has worked during this period. The applicant was engaged as beldar on daily wage basis on dated 21.12.89 and continued to work as such till 6/91. He was then engaged as daily wage supervisor 3 w.e.f. 12.6.1991. After completion of job his services were no longer required. Later on he remained will fully absent from the Govt. duty, after that he filed an O.A. 1266/92, and as per interim orders dated 25.9.1992 he was re-engaged as daily rated supervisor and the final order were passed on 10.10.96, wherein applicant was treated as beldar and was reengaged as daily rated beldar till the decision in review petition (M) No. 7.97 on 6.9.2000 and his reengagement as daily wage supervisor w.e.f 1.1.01 and till today he is continuing on the same post. Detail of mandays annexed as per Annexure R-1. The applicant was offered the post of Beldar during the year 2006 vide office order No. PW-MDI-EA-III-6/2006-20979-88 dated 3- 02-2006 but he refused to accept that post, verbally as well as in writing as per Annexure R-2.” 4. It is manifest from the man days chart Annexure R-1 to the above reply to the miscellaneous application for amendment that the petitioner had initially joined the employment of the respondent- department as Class-IV employee (beldar) in the year 1989. Later on, in 1991 after working as a Class-IV hand for 79 days, he was designated as a Class-III official (supervisor) and continued working as such upto the year 1997, when abruptly in that year he is shown to have been reverted to Class-IV post and is shown to have worked 4 as such upto the year 2000. Thereafter, again in 2001 onwards he is shown to have been working as Class-III official. The abrupt change in the status of the petitioner from Class-III to Class-IV in the year 1997 appears to have been as a result of order dated 10.10.1996, Annexure PB, passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (since abolished), when the matter was before the said Tribunal and has since been transferred to this court, wherein the designation of the petitioner was incorrectly mentioned as ‘beldar’, which mistake was later on rectified by the said Tribunal by way of review vide order dated 6.9.2000, Annexure PC. It appears that by taking undue benefit of the aforesaid mistake in the order of the Tribunal the respondent- department changed the designation of the petitioner from supervisor (Class-III) to beldar (Class-IV) and did not rectify the mistake even after the same was undone by the Tribunal by reviewing its earlier order dated 10.10.1996. This state of affairs, which on the face of it has no lawful basis, cannot be allowed to persist. 5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner difference of wages between that of beldar and supervisor for the period starting from the date when his designation was changed from supervisor to that of beldar in the year 1997 to 31.12.2000, within three 5 months from today along with interest @ 6% per annum, failing which, higher interest @ 9% per annum shall be payable. 6. The petition as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 27th April, 2011. Lsp*