SHRI SOHAN SINGH SON OF SHRI FULLA DASS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAMRU, POST OFFICE SANGLA, TEHSIL SANGLA, DISTRICT KINNAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY (HOME), TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171002,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of Annexure P -4, which is an order of the Director General of Police disposing of the representation preferred by the petitioner seeking appointment/regularization as Cook in the police department. The second relief sought for by the petitioner is quashing of Annexure P -5, which is an order of transfer, attaching the petitioner with Shri Anurag Garg, DIG SV & ACB, Shimla till further orders. The petitioner also prays for direction to the respondents to confirm him against the post of Cook i.e. Class -III post w.e.f. 5.5.2000 and grant all consequential benefits. It is not in dispute before me that the petitioner joined service in the police department as a sweeper which is a Class -IV post. The case set up by the petitioner is that by order Annexure P -1, he was temporarily attached with 1st Battalion Junga to prepare meals for the Jawans. The petitioner pleaded that despite the nomenclature of his appointment as sweeper he is continuously performing the duties of a Cook. Prior to the institution of the present writ petition, the petitioner has preferred CWP No. 1537 of 2010 which was disposed of on 3rd May, 2010 by this Court with the direction that the Annexure P -2 filed with that petition be treated as a representation by the respondents. Pursuant thereto, the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh took up the case of the petitioner on 2.11.2010 and disposed of it on the record available with the police department holding that the petitioner was appointed as sweeper in the 1st HPAP Battalion and thereafter he was deployed in 3rd HPAP Battalion, Pandoh and vide order dated 5.5.2000 he was attached to "F" Company Mess to prepare meals for the Jawans and remained posted as such till 14.12.2000. On that day he was relieved of his duties and asked to join his duties at 1st HPAP Battalion. Thereafter he was directed to join his duties with AP&T Head Quarter. The Director General of Police finds as a fact that there is no record that the petitioner discharged duties of cook continuously except for the period from 5.5.2000 to 14.12.2000. Consequently, the representation of the petitioner was partly accepted and he was granted wages of cook w.e.f. 5.5.2000 to 14.12.2000.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that this is factually incorrect as the petitioner had been performing duties of a cook not only for this period but also for other long spells of time. He placed reliance on a communication addressed by Inspector General of Police, Centre Range Mandi to the Additional Director General of Police/AP&T, Shimla stating that the petitioner was attached with him in May, 2008 and not in the years 2000 -2006. He says that during this period (200 -2006) he remained attached with Shri Prem Singh, IPS (now retired). During the period when the petitioner was attached with this Officer (Inspector General of Police, Mandi), he performed the duties of a sweeper and also prepared meals for him. Learned counsel submits that this is conclusive proof that the petitioner was performing duties of a Cook. The state in its reply categorically stated that it was only from 5.5.2000 to 14.12.2000 that the petitioner performed wuch duteis. Learned counsel relies upon the decision in Bhagwati Prasad versus Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, 1992 (8) SLR 784 to urge that principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable and then submits that he is entitled not only to the pay of the post in question but also regularization against the post. Before adverting to the principle of law, what I find from the facts placed on record is that the order, Annexure P -4 does not take into consideration Annexure P -6 as filed by the petitioner. The veracity/genuineness of this document cannot be doubted as it originates from the officer of the Police Department itself. In these circumstances, the respondents shall reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the additional material placed on the records of the case. The disposal of this petition does not determine the merit of the claim as urged by the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to the costs.