IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 4055/2008 Decided on:6.9.2010 _____________________________________________ Rajinder Bindra. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge ( oral ) . Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he was appointed as daily wage labourer, however, he was discharging the duties of Assistant Photographer with effect from 1986 to 1990 and thereafter Photographer with effect from 1990 to 1997. In order to substantiate his case, petitioner has heavily relied upon Annexures A-1 to A-21 and A-23 to A-27. Respondent-State has not rebutted the contents of these Annexures. Further case of the petitioner is that though he was working as Assistant Photographer 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No and Photographer, however, he has not been paid the wages of these posts. 2. Since the petitioner has worked, as per these Annexures, on the higher post, he is entitled to the salary of these posts on the principles of “equal pay for equal work”. 3. Accordingly, respondents are directed to pay the difference of wages of the posts of Assistant Photographer and Photographer to the petitioner with effect from 1986 to 1990 and 1990 to 1997, respectively within a period of three months after the production of the certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. However, he is not entitled to any interest on the difference of wages payable to him. 3. Accordingly, in view of above direction, the petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 6.9.2010 *awasthi*