Sh. Rajinder Kumar vs The State of Himachal Pradesh

Deepak Gupta, J.—The petitioner filed an Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. On the abolition of the Tribunal, the said Original Application was transferred to this Court in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of Decided and Pending Cases and Applications) Act, 2008 and registered as CWP(T) No. 11484 of 2008. The petitioner by means of this petition has sought various reliefs but at time of hearing Mr. Ranjan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, only pressed reliefs (i) and (ii) which read as follows:-

"(i) That the respondents may be directed to release the difference of salary of beldar/Mate vis-�-vis the post of a Clerk w.e.f December 1997 to March 2004 to the applicant in the pay scale of 3120-5160 with start at 3220/- forthwith.

(ii) That the Respondents may be directed to release the arrears of difference in salary as in para 7(i) and thereafter forthwith."

The petitioner in his petition has stated that since he was a matriculate, knew typing and was eligible to work as Clerk, respondent No. 4 passed a direction in December 1997 whereby the petitioner, who was holding regular post of Beldar, was deputed to and asked to perform the duties of Clerk. In para 6(xiv), the petitioner has given details of the files, which he dealt with as Clerk w.e.f. December 1997 to 28th February, 2004. He has even given the details of some files after 2004 but it is apparent that after 2004 he was not doing only clerical work.

The State has filed a reply on the affidavit of Superintending Engineer and a perusal of the reply especially the replies in paras 6(viii), 6(ix) and 6(xiv) shows that only an evasive reply has been given. The fact that the petitioner performed the duties which he alleges is not denied. It is, however, alleged that the petitioner performed these duties willingly and of his own accord. It is also admitted that since the petitioner was a matriculate and knew typing he was attached with the Establishment Branch to perform the duties of Clerk. In a case where such attachment is made for a few days, the employee may not have a right to ask for higher wages but if such attachment is continuous and continuous for seven long years like in the present case, then the employee definitely has a right to claim that he is entitled to wages which are payable to Clerk on the principle of equal pay for equal work, since he is rendering the same work in the same department. It is for the employer to decide whether the work of Clerk should be taken from a Beldar or not and no Beldar as a matter of right can claim that he should be asked to perform the duties of a Clerk. Having said so, once the employer decides that the Class-IV employee should do the work of Clerk, there is no reason why such employee should be denied the benefit of higher wages.

Consequently, the petition is allowed to the limited extent that the petitioner shall be entitled to salary of Clerk w.e.f. 1st December, 1997 to 28th February, 2004. The difference between the salary received by the petitioner and salary payable to the Clerk shall also be paid to him latest by 31st July, 2012, failing which the State shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum right from the year 1997 till date. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs