Roop Lal vs State of H.P and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—By means of this petition the Petitioner alleges that though he is shown to be appointed as cleaner but he is actually working as a driver in the Respondent-department. According to the Petitioner since May, 1992 he is working as driver but has been paid salary of a cleaner. He was regularly appointed as cleaner on 1.1.1994 in the pay scale of Rs. 7701320/-.

The grievance of the Petitioner is that though he was appointed as cleaner but he was made to do the work of a driver and he, therefore, prays that the Respondents be directed to appoint 2 the applicant as driver w.e.f. May, 1992 and be also directed to pay equal pay for equal work.

As far as the first prayer is concerned, such relief cannot be granted to the Petitioner. The Petitioner cannot claim that he should be appointed as driver especially when he does not fulfill the minimum eligibility qualification of being middle pass. In the reply filed by the State it has been categorically admitted that the Petitioner actually did work as a driver till 1.2.2000. Therefore, there can be no manner of doubt that the Petitioner would be entitled to the pay of a driver till the said date.

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed and the Respondents are directed to pay the minimum pay payable to a driver in the regular scale to the Petitioner for the period 1.9.1996 till 1.2.2000. The claim is being restricted to three years prior to filing of the original application before the Tribunal. The Respondents are directed to work out the arrears, if any, and pay the same to the Petitioner alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date it fell due till payment thereof on or before 31st March, 2011 failing which the Respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.