2026:HHC:6548 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 144 of 2019 Decided on : 09.03.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Meena Kumari ...Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. ...Respondent ____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “i)That the office order dated 13.10.2014 contained in Annexure P-4 may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing a writ of mandamus. ii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioner for regularization as Clerk instead of peon w.e.f. 20.01.1996 and the respondents may further very kindly be directed to grant seniority, promotions etc. to the petitioner with all consequential benefits by issuing a writ of mandamus” 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially engaged as daily 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:6548 waged bill distributor/clerk on muster-roll basis under HPSEB Division, Saigaloo, in the year 1986. However, her services were regularized as Peon, instead of Clerk on 20.01.1996. The petitioner was thereafter promoted as Clerk on 04.11.2004. It has been averred that from the initial date of her appointment, she had successfully discharged her official duties to the best of her ability and to the satisfaction of her superiors. One Sh. Krishan Kumar, son of Sh. Naresh Kumar, who was initially appointed as Meter Ledger Clerk (hereinafter referred as MLC) in the year, 1990, his services were regularized as Clerk in the year, 1996, and he was junior to the petitioner. It has been averred that one Ramesh Kumar had filed the petition bearing No. CWP (T) No. 3920 of 2008, which was decided by this Court on 14.05.2009 (Annexure P-1), and this Court had given directions to consider his appointment as Clerk from the date when his junior was promoted as a Clerk. Thereafter, one Sh. Roop Lal, had also approached this Court by way of CWP No. 5817 of 2013-B, which was decided on 13.08.2013 (Annexure P-2), with a direction to the said petitioner to approach the respondents, bringing out the circumstances under which, his case is covered by the decision rendered 3 2026:HHC:6548 by this Court in CWP(T) No. 3920 of 2008 (OA No. 1896/96), titled, Ramesh Kumar Vashist vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board & Ors. 3. The petitioner had also approached this Court by way of CWP No. 5495 of 2014, titled, Meena Kumari vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., and Ors., and this Court vide order dated 13.08.2014 (Annexure P-3) had disposed of the same with a direction to the respondents to consider her claim within a period of four weeks, since she had submitted that her case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 14.05.2009, rendered by Ramesh Kumar Vashist’s case (supra). 4. The respondents-Board after passing direction by this Court had passed an office order dated 13.10.2014 (Annexure P-4), whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected holding that the petitioner was engaged on daily waged basis, during 1986 to 1996 as Bill Distributor (hereinafter referred to as BD) which is a class -IV post, and she never worked/performed the duties of MLC/Cashier during the period. The respondents-Board had rightly regularized the services of Sh. Krishan Kumar, Ramesh Kumar and Roop Lal etc., as Clerk, as they were initially 4 2026:HHC:6548 engaged against the post of Class-IV, but performed their duties of MLC/Cashier/Meter Reader etc. Since the petitioner was never appointed as MLC from her initial engagement, therefore, her case is not similar to the cases of S/Sh. Krishan Kumar, Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Roop Lal etc. 5. The petitioner has placed on record communication dated 15.05.1993 (Annexure P-5) issued by the respondent-Board, whereby the work distribution of commercial section in electricity/division Saigloo was given to the employees working with them. A perusal of this communication reveals that Sh. Roop Lal and Dila Ram, whose names figure at Serial No. 8 and 9 have been shown as BD and they have been deployed to spot billing as per monthly tour programme, monthly T.D.C.O., of his Group No. KT, KSD and will help the record in duplicate copy files, ledger etc. The name of the petitioner figures at serial No. 10, was shown as B.D. (D.W.) and she has been asked to help in preparing the bills, book files at Serial No. 23, 5 & 8 and record in duplicate copies. 6. Since the petitioner was performing the duties similar to Dila Ram and Roop Lal, who have been promoted as Clerk w.e.f. 20.01.1996, similar treatment was not given 5 2026:HHC:6548 to her and the finding recorded in the impugned order passed by the respondent-Board that the case of the petitioner is not similar to that of Roop Lal and others is wrong. It has also been submitted that on the principle of equal pay for equal work as enshrined under Article, 38(d) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has been discriminated, and thus prays for quashing the impugned order, rejecting her claim. 7. The respondent-Board filed reply to the petition and averred that the petition is not maintainable, since there is no enforceable cause of action, the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has withheld material information. She is estopped by her own acts, conduct and acquiescence, the petition is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties and further the petition is hopelessly barred by delay and latches. On merits in para No. 4 of the reply, it has been admitted that Sh. Krishan Kumar, son of Sh. Naresh Kumar was appointed as MLC, class-IV in the year, 1990 and further his services were regularized as clerk in the year, 1996. However, it has been submitted that Sh. Krishan Kumar was performing the duties of MLC/Cashier/Meter Reader etc. The petitioner was 6 2026:HHC:6548 engaged as daily waged BD class -IV and she never worked/performed the duties of MLC/Cashier during the period of 1986 to 1996. In reply to para No. 8 of the petition, wherein the petitioner had pleaded, that the other persons namely Dila Ram and Roop Lal, were also performing the similar duties as done by the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has drawn wrong comparison and conclusion from the contents of annexure P-5, annexed with the petition. It has also been averred that Dila Ram and Roop Lal along with others belong to different cadres and the petitioner comes nowhere near them in reference to her qualification etc., therefore, similar treatment cannot be meted out to her. 8. I have heard Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent and also gone through the record carefully. 9. It is not in dispute that the respondent-Board had issued annexure P-5, wherein persons i.e. Dila Ram and Roop Lal were appointed as BD and were assigned the duties as being performed by the petitioner. When the petitioner had earlier filed the writ petition before this Court, the direction was given to the respondent-Board to 7 2026:HHC:6548 consider her case as per the judgment of this Court in Ramesh Kumar Vashist’s case (supra). While rejecting the claim of the petitioner, respondent-Board had only mentioned that the petitioner was engaged on daily waged as BD which is a class-IV post during 1986 to 1996, and she has never worked/performed the duties of the MLC/Cashier during the period, whereas, if annexure P-5, which is placed on record, is perused, the petitioner was asked to perform the duties of Clerk, as was assigned to other persons namely Sh. Dila Ram and Roop Lal, who have been regularized on the post of the Clerk. The respondents have not denied the issuance of the duty roster as per annexure P-5, which clearly shows that the petitioner has also discharged her duties on the post of Clerk. 10. The pleas which have been taken by the respondent-Board in the reply that the petitioner has no enforceable cause of action, not approached this Court with clean hands, withheld material information, estopped by her own acts, conduct and acquiescence, for non joinder of necessary parties and delay and laches and her claim is also not supported by any material placed on record are without any substance. 8 2026:HHC:6548 11. The respondent-Board has not mentioned that why no enforceable cause of action is there in favour of petitioner. Since the petitioner has not been granted the relief, she has a cause to file petition. The respondent-Board has not mentioned any fact to suggest that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. Since the petitioner is claiming parity, she is not supposed to implead any person in the petition. 12. Lastly the plea taken by the respondent-Board that the petition is hopelessly barred by delay and laches, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that when the petitioner has earlier filed the petition, they had not taken the plea that the grievances of the petitioner cannot be looked into as per the dictum passed by this Court in Ramesh Kumar Vashist’s case (supra). Not only this, even while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, vide office order dated 13.10.2014, no such factor had weighed with the respondents and further her claim has not been rejected on delay laches. The only reason which had been assigned is that the petitioner was engaged as daily waged BD, which is a Class-IV post, and further she has not worked/performed the duties of MLC/Cashier/Meter reader during the period. 9 2026:HHC:6548 However, a perusal of annexure P-5 clearly reveals that though the petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee, but she had been asked to perform the duties on the post of Clerk, as was done in case of other persons. 13. The respondent-Board while filing reply has admitted that Sh. Krishan Kumar was appointed as MLC, class-IV in the year, 1990 and his services were regularized as Clerk in the year, 1996. Once the petitioner was appointed earlier on daily wage BD in the year, 1986 which too is a Class-IV post, she is entitled to the same relief as has been extended to Sh. Krishan Kumar. 14. The plea taken by the respondent-Board that the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties has already been rejected for the reason that the petitioner is claiming parity. Once in the case of other similarly situated persons, especially in case of Roop Lal, who had also come before this Court in the year, 2013 claiming the same benefit as granted to Ramesh Kumar Vashist, the respondent-Board has extended the benefit of the said judgment, parity demands that the same benefit ought to have been extended to the petitioner also. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier in the year, 2014 when 10 2026:HHC:6548 direction was given by this Court to consider her claim on the analogy of Ramesh Kumar Vashist, but her claim was rejected. Therefore, the plea raised that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, is rejected. 15. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.10.2014, passed by respondent-Board is quashed and set aside, and the respondent-Board is directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as Clerk w.e.f. 20.01.1996 on notional basis till the date of filing the present petition and thereafter with all consequential benefits. However, she will be assigned seniority below the aforesaid persons namely Krishan Kumar, Dila Ram and Roop Lal etc., who had been regularized on the post of Clerk. However, no order as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 09 th March, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge