Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kanta Bhardwaj vs State Of H.P. And Another on 6 April, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sharma
Bench: Rajiv Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA.
CWP No. 7771/2010
.
Reserved on : 2.4.2015
Decided on: 6.4.2015
___________________________________________________
Kanta Bhardwaj. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. and another. ...Respondents.
________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Parmod Thakur, Addl. A.G. with
Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. A.G. for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
________________________________________________________
Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge:
Petitioner was engaged as daily wage Beldar on 1.12.2000. She is discharging the duties of a Clerk from the date of her engagement. Name of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:57:01 :::HCHP 2petitioner also finds mention in Annexure P-2.
Petitioner has also filed an affidavit sworn on 9.6.2006 .
that she has joined HIMUDA on 1.12.2000 and is working as a Clerk from the very beginning. CEO-cum-
Secretary, HIMUDA has written a communication to the Secretary (Housing) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh on 2.1.2007 bringing to his notice that certain employees were engaged by erstwhile Shimla Development Authority and were designated as Beldars/Morter Mates whereas right from their engagement, the work of Clerk was being taken from them. However, fact of the matter is that the proposal sent by CEO-cum-Secretary, HIMUDA was rejected by the State Government vide Annexure R-2/A on 22.1.2007. In fact, the CEO-cum-Secretary, HIMUDA has sent a communication to all the Executive Engineers regarding assigning of duties and responsibilities of higher cadre/ different cadre to an employee of lower cadre. Respondent No. 2 could not issue this letter after permitting the petitioner to discharge the duties of a Clerk for more than a decade.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:57:01 :::HCHP 3Operation of Annexure P-1, dated 23.10.2010 was stayed by this Court. The petitioner till date is working .
as a Clerk w.e.f. 1.12.2000. Respondent-2 is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The action of respondents not to regularize the petitioner as a Clerk and also not to pay her minimum salary of a Clerk amounts to unfair labour practice and exploitation. Petitioner is working with respondent No. 2 for the last more than 15 years without any break.
She was entitled to be regularized as per the norms/guidelines laid down by the State of Himachal Pradesh and being followed by respondent No.2. She was also entitled to the pay scale of a Clerk on the principles of "equal pay for equal work.
2. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has vehemently argued that the petitioner does not fulfill the essential conditions of recruitment and promotion Rules. Whether the petitioner fulfills the conditions of Recruitment and Promotion Rules or not was required to be seen at the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:57:01 :::HCHP 4 time of initial engagement of the petitioner on 1.12.2000 and not at this belated stage.
.
3. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
Respondents are directed to regularize the petitioner as per norms laid down by the state government and also to pay her minimum pay scale of the post of Clerk w.e.f.
1.12.2000 by adjusting the amount already paid to her on account of daily wages within a period of four weeks, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.
(Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
6.4.2015 *awasthi* ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:57:01 :::HCHP