KEDAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner, as evident from the reply, furnished to the extant writ petition, by the respondents, is, suffering a 75 per centum disability. However, the writ petitioner, through the extant writ petition, seeks quashing of Annexure P-2, wherethrough, the claim of the writ petitioner, for his designation, being changed, from that of a Beldar, to, that of a Peon, has been rejected. The afore striving(s), for change of designation, would come to become countenanced, by this Court, only, upon the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, containing consonant, therewith mandate. However, a perusal of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, as becomes carried in the reply, furnished to the writ petition, by the respondents, does not withstand, the afore striving(s), as, made by the writ petitioner's counsel.

(2.) Consequently, the writ claim, is, not amenable for being accepted, hence, it is rejected.

(3.) Be that as it may, the afore evident entailment, of, 75 per centum disability, upon, the writ petitioner, inasmuch as, of low vision, when direly impairs the efficient rendition of his duties, as a Beldar, as he is required to be performing manual work, (i) thereupon, the respondents are directed, to, not take/extract, from him, any manual work, rather, they may take/extract work, from him, other than of, a manual labour. If the respondents take/extract work, from the writ petitioner, other than one, appertaining, to, manual work, thereupon, the writ petitioner may not claim parity of wages or parity of salaries, payable to a Peon, since it becomes conjointly stated at the Bar, by the learned counsels, for the contesting litigants, that the pay-scale of a Beldar, appointed in a substantive capacity, are, par with that of a Peon.