2025:HHC:6172 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWOA No. 812 of 2019 Reserved on: 7.3.2025 Date of decision : 17.03.2025. Om Prakash ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Shipra Thakur & Ms. Heena Bhardwaj, Advocates vice Mr. Vasu Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ajit Sharma, DAG, for the respondent-State. Satyen Vaidya, Judge: The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive reliefs:- “i) Directing the respondents to grant the pay scale of Class-III post i.e. the pay scale of Rs. 950- 1800 (pre-revised0instead of the pay scale of Rs. 770-1410 9pre-revised-revised to Rs. 2520- 4140 w.e.f. 1.1.1996) to the petitioner being a Class-III employee (Plumber) which was revised to Rs. 3120-5160 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 to which the petitioner is legally and validly entitled. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- ii) That in view of relief at (i) above, directing the respondents to grant the consequential benefits including payment of arrears accruing thereto alongwith interest @ 12% per annum on the said payments from the due date till the payment of actual payment”. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Plumber on daily wage basis in Forest Range, Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P. in the year 1984. His services as Plumber were regularized in January, 1998. The order of regularization of services of the petitioner was issued on 3.1.1998 and in pursuance thereto, petitioner joined on 9.1.1998. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the post of Plumber is Class-III post and in January, 1998, the scale of pay admissible to Class-III post was Rs. 950-1800, whereas the petitioner was granted the pay scale admissible to Class-IV post i.e. Rs. 770-1410. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 5. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner in the year 2012. The respondents beside contesting the claim of the petitioner on merits have also taken a specific objection as to delay and laches on part of -3- the petitioner in making the claim. The respondents have denied that the post of Plumber is a Class-III post. They have asserted that the petitioner was rightly granted the admissible pay scale of Rs. 770-1410, while regularizing his services vide communication dated 3.1.1998. 6. Record reveals that the petitioner for the first time raised the claim of higher scale vide representation dated 26.2.2012 (Annexure P-3). There is no explanation as to why the petitioner remained silent for fourteen years after his regularization. It can also be seen that the petitioner had earlier also approached this Court by way of CWP No. 3881 of 2010 and in the said petition, the petitioner had claimed the following relief:- “To direct the respondents to give work charged status to the petitioner on the post of Plumber w.e.f. 1.1.1994 with all consequential benefits and release arrears of pay in accordance with the statement Annexure P-1 submitted by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2”. 7. Evidently, the petitioner while filing CWP No. 3881 of 2010 had not raised any claim regarding grant of higher pay scale of Class-III. Thus, the petition clearly suffers from delay and laches. -4- 8. Even on merits, the petitioner has not placed on record any material to prove his contention that the post of Plumber was Class-III post. The onus to prove the said fact was on petitioner, particularly when such contention of petitioner has specifically been denied by the respondents. The fact that the petitioner accepted the terms of regularization order dated 3.1.1998, in which, the pay scale of Rs. 770-1410 was clearly mentioned shows that the petitioner was aware about the correct factual position from the beginning. 9. Accordingly, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 17th March, 2025 (kck)