BALKRISHAN Vs. STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned writ Court, whereby the claim of the petitioner for directing the respondents to consider him as Supervisor and pay him salary accordingly from the date of his initial engagement, that is, March, 1992, stands rejected. The facts in brief may be noticed.

(2.) The appellant is matriculate and was engaged as a Beldar by the respondents in March, 1992 and claimed that ever since his appointment, was working as Supervisor. He further claimed that the persons appointed much after him had been designated as Supervisors whereas, this benefit had been denied to him. The petitioner made various representations and thereafter ultimately filed Original Application before the Tribunal.

(3.) In response to the claim, the respondents had submitted that the appellant had been appointed as a Beldar and had, therefore, rightly been paid the wages of Beldar. The appellant filed rejoinder and annexed therewith muster rolls Annexures A-2/1 to A-2/7 in support of his contention that he marked the presence of workers who were on duty and thus according to him this was sufficient proof to prove that he had been working as Supervisor.