IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:2314/2008 Decided on: 5.3. 2009 Satya Dev Shukla. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No For the petitioner : Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis in the year 1987. Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate submits that from the very beginning he had been discharging the duties of a Clerk. The State Government had issued notifications vide Annexures A-3 to A-5 whereby minimum wages were fixed for the category of Clerks. According to Mr. Lokender Thakur, his client was not paid the wages fixed vide Annexures A-3 to A-5 though he had been working as a Clerk. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the petitioner was in fact appointed 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 as an illiterate daily rated Mazdoor. He has drawn the attention of the Court to muster roll whereby his status has been shown as Mazdoor. Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate has drawn the attention of the Court to communication dated 5.10.1993 (Annexure-1) whereby the Forest Range Officer in sequel to letter dated 1.10.1993 has sent information to the Divisional Forest Officer, Kunihar mentioning therein that the petitioner was holding the post of daily wage clerk and he was a matriculate. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General submits on the basis of the reply filed to the petition that the letter was issued in a routine manner. There is no reason to disbelieve the official communication dated 5.10.1993. It may be that the petitioner was appointed as a daily wage Mazdoor and his presence was marked in muster roll as Mazdoor, however, the fact of the matter as is evident from Annexure A-1 is that he has been working as a Clerk. The Court has to go by the official correspondence. In case the correspondence i.e. Annexure A-1 was contrary to the facts, the same was bound to be withdrawn or some action was to be taken against the Forest Range Officer. The communication dated 5.10.1993 has not been withdrawn as admitted by the parties nor any action has been taken against the Forest Range Officer for issuing the same. Mr. Lokender Thakur has also brought to the notice of the Court that in fact the petitioner according to his instructions has been regularized as a Clerk. He could be regularized as a Clerk since he was working/discharging the duties of the Clerk. In these circumstances, the petitioner could not be deprived of the wages fixed vide Annexures A-3 to A-5. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the wages to the petitioner strictly as per Annexures A-3 to 3 A-5 for the period he has worked as a Clerk within a period of eight weeks from today. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 5.3.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*