DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY medium of this writ petition, the following reliefs have been claimed by the petitioner: -

(2.) THE petitioner claims to have been engaged by respondent No. 3 as Beldar on daily waged basis and continued to work as such up to May 1999. During the interregnum from March 1994 to May 1999, the services of the petitioner were utilized in clerical cadre where he worked as a Computer Operator Clerk. It is then claimed that despite issuing muster -roll of Mason w.e.f. 1999 to 2007, the petitioner's services have again been utilized in the clerical cadre as Computer Operator Clerk and the salary for the said post has not been paid to him. It is further averred that despite the petitioner having worked as Clerk, his services were regularized as a Beldar instead of Mason or Clerk and in spite of repeated representations, the respondents have not redressed his grievances, hence present petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. The reliefs (a) and (aa) are overlapping and in view of categorical admission of the respondents themselves that petitioner has worked as Computer Operator Clerk intermittently as is clear from perusal of Annexures -PD and PF, the respondents cannot escape from their responsibility of paying the wages/pay of Computer Operator Clerk, accordingly the respondents are directed to pay the petitioner the pay of Computer Operator Clerk for the time the petitioner has actually worked as such on the principles of "equal pay for equal work".