SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA 
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Satish Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation Shimla - Respondent
CWPOA Nos. 6552, 6555, 6608, 6609 6612 of 2020
Decided On : 07-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jai Ram Sharma
For the Respondents: Mukul Sood, Tejasvi Dogra

Employment claims must be substantiated with evidence; unproven assertions cannot alter established job designations.

Headnote:(A) Equal pay for equal work - The petitioner sought regularization as Meter Reader/Clerk from the Municipal Corporation, claiming he had performed such duties, while the Corporation maintained his role was that of a Mazdoor. Petitioner was denied the higher designation due to lack of evidence supporting his assertions regarding his employment status. The court found the claim unsubstantiated, noting reliance on prior admissions, leading to dismissal of the petition. (Paras 1, 8, 10, 11)

(B) Procedure on disputed facts - The court emphasized that disputes regarding employment claims must be resolved through appropriate forums rather than in this instance, where factual disagreements were flagged. The principle of judicial notice was invoked to reject unfounded claims. (Paras 8, 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was regularized as a Mazdoor (Class-IV) after asserting he had worked solely in this role since April 2000, despite claims to have been engaged as Meter Reader/Clerk (Class-III). The respondent denied that the petitioner had carried out such functions, asserting evidence of his Mazdoor classification was established. A review of prior applications revealed contradictory claims regarding his employment roles.

Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the lead case CWPOA No. 6609 of 2020, stating that no evidence was provided to substantiate the petitioner’s claims about functioning as a Meter Reader/Clerk, and disputes surrounding the claim necessitated resolving before appropriate authorities.

Issues: The main issues involved the legitimacy of the petitioner’s claim for reclassification and whether the proposed designation fit his actual role within the organization.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that disparities in employment roles must be substantiated with credible evidence, and previous admissions by the party weighed heavily against altering the previously assigned title. It highlighted that established processes must address employee disputes instead of altering designations based solely on unproven claims.

Result: All petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. consolidation of similar cases (Para 1 , 2)
2. stand of respondents regarding employment status (Para 3 , 4)
3. details of connected cases (Para 5)
4. failure to rebut claims (Para 6)
5. court’s reasoning on petitioner’s claims (Para 8 , 9)
6. dismissal of petitions (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that CWP No. 6609 of 2020, titled as Deep Ram vs. Municipal Corporation Shimla and another and others connected cases may be taken up together as the prayers made in Lead Case and connected cases is identical. Prayer appears to be genuine is granted and accordingly all the cases are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

FACTUAL MATRIX IN LEAD CASE - CWPOA NO. 6609 OF 2021:

2. Petitioner, Deep Ram, has come up before this Court, seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) That the respondent-corporation may kindly be directed to grant the pay scale of MeterReader/clerk to the applicant w.e.f. due date i.e. 05.04.2014 (Annexure A-2), on the analogy of equal pay for equal work with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice.

(b) That the applicant may kindly be held entitled for regularization as Meter Reader instead of Mazdoor by modifying the regularization order at Annexure A-1 only to the extent of designation, with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice.”

(i) The grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner was engaged as Meter Reader/Clerk on daily wage basis in April, 2000 by the respondent No.1 Municipal Corporation, Shimla and Respondent-Corporation has extracted the work of Meter Reader/Clerk since his initial engagement but the respondent-Corporation issued an order on 09.11.2016 [Annexure A-1] regularizing the petitioner as Mazdoor (Class-IV) w.e.f. 1.4.2009 instead of Meter Reader (Class-III) on completion of eight years of continuous service on higher post of Meter Reader (Class-III). It is averred that as per order dated 05.04.2014 [Annexure A-2] Respondent Corporation has extracted the work of Meter Reader/Clerk from the petitioner.

(ii) In this background, the claim of the petitioner is that once the petitioner has been made to work as Reader/Clerk (Class-III) since his initial engagement on daily wage basis from April, 2000 then the petitioner deserves to be regularized as Meter Reader/Clerk from the date of completion of eight years instead of regularizing him on lower post of Mazdoor [Class-IV) on 09.11.2016 [Annexure A-1] w.e.f. 01.04.2009 and in these circumstances petitioner has prayed for retrospective regularization with all service benefits including pay in applicable pay scale of Meter Reader/Clerk with pay fixation and other service benefits.

STAND OF RESPONDENTS-CORPORATION IN CWPOA NO. 6609 OF 2021:

3. Upon issuance of notice, the Respondent- Municipal Corporation has filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 28.09.2021 of Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla:

(i) In Para 3 and 6(i) of reply-affidavit respondent-Corporation has taken a specific stand that the petitioner was initially engaged as Mazdoor on daily wage basis in Road and Building Department of respondent Corporation w.e.f. 01.04.2000. It is further averred in reply that in terms of the orders dated 30.05.2016 the petitioner was regularized as Mazdoor w.e.f. 01.04.2009 on completion of eight years of continuous daily wage basis. Reply-affidavit further indicates that Respondent-Corporation has never engaged the petitioner on daily wage basis. Reply affidavit specifically denies that the respondent- Corporation has extracted the work of Meter Reader by petitioner since his initial engagement. Para 6(iv) of reply further indicates that so far as the communication dated 05.04.2014 is concerned, the same is of no assistance to the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner was neither engaged nor was he ever made to work as Meter Reader/Clerk (Class-III) but the petitioner was deployed for assisting the Meter Reading Staff

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top