IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 4782 of 2008. Decided on: 31.08.2010. __________________________________________________________ Ramesh Chand Dhiman. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that though he had been discharging the duties of Water Sports Instructor, however, he has not been paid the salary of the post of Water Sports Instructor on the principles of “equal pay for equal work”. His further case is that he should have been considered for promotion to the post of Water Sports Instructor from the feeder post of Sailmaker. The petitioner has placed sufficient material on record, i.e. Annexures P-2 to P-17 to substantiate that he had been working as Water Sports Inspector as and when directed. The gist of the reply filed by the respondents is that the petitioner has never been asked to discharge the duties of Water Sports Instructor and he had been doing these duties on his own interest/request. The respondents have not placed any material on 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - record to rebut Annexures P-2 to P-17. In view of this, the petitioner is at least entitled to the salary of the post of Water Sports Instructor on the principles of “equal pay for equal work”. 2. Now so far as the question of appointment of the petitioner to the post of Water Sports Instructor is concerned, he does not possess the essential qualifications, which include the following:- (1) Basic Course in Water Sports, (2) Intermediate Course in Canoeing, and (3) Advance Course in Sailing. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner’s application could not be forwarded to the Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. His case for promotion to the post of Water Sports Instructor was also considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee have been annexed with the reply. Since the petitioner was not found eligible and qualified, his case could not be recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee. 3. Consequently, in view of the observation made hereinabove, the petition is partly allowed to the extent that the petitioner is entitled to the salary of the post of Water Sports Instructor on the principles of “equal pay for equal work”. The petitioner shall be paid the arrears of salary within a period of ten weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. August 31, 2010. (sck).