Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Durga Dev Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.

Durga Dev Sharma vs State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Himachal Pradesh Decided May 27, 2011
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/919474

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CWP (T) No.9374 of 2008
Subject
Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue
Right to Information
Acts & sections
The Right to Information Act (RTI)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Durga Dev Sharma

Advocate Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, Adv.

Respondent

State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.

Advocate Mr. J.S. Guleria, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
The Right to Information Act (RTI)

Excerpt

.....officer. by this order, certain persons, including the petitioner, who had been deployed for election duty, were relieved of their duty, with a direction to report for duty to their respective departments. 5. aforesaid office order, annexure a2e, cannot be treated as admission by the employing department of the petitioner, because it is not issued by the said department. may be that the district election officer took the job of a clerk from the petitioner. 6. learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance upon, annexures a-8 and a-9, two documents which he received from respondent no.2, in response to his application for supply of information, under the right to information act. the two communications, annexures a8 and a9, suggest that petitioner had been required to type 52 numbers of estimates, consisting of 769 pages from 5.7.1990 to 13.3.2003.that means, during the period of 13 years, he typed only 769 pages or say, about 60 pages a year. the fact belies the claim of the petitioner that he was required to do the job of a clerk throughout the period of his employment as beldar and supports respondents’ plea that the petitioner was required to do the job of typist, occasionally. 7. for the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. Petitioner, who as per record maintained by the respondents, was engaged as Beldar, on daily wages, in the year 1990, claims that in fact the work of a Clerk-cumTypist was being taken from him from the very beginning and, therefore, he is entitled to the wages of a Clerk-cumTypist and a direction be issued to the respondents to pay him the wages of a Clerk-cum-Typist, instead of wages of a Beldar, as are being paid to him. Also, he seeks regularization of his service, as Clerk, on completion of 8 years service, as a daily waged Clerk, instead of regularization as Beldar.

2. Respondents have controverted petitioner’s claim that he was made to work as Clerk-cum-Typist. According to them, he was engaged as Beldar and occasionally, work of Typist used to be taken from him.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon an Office Order, copy Annexure A-2E, which is dated 17.2.1998, in which petitioner’s designation is shown to be that of a Clerk. This Office Order was issued by District Election Officer. By this order, certain persons, including the petitioner, who had been deployed for election duty, were relieved of their duty, with a direction to report for duty to their respective departments.

5. Aforesaid Office Order, Annexure A2E, cannot be treated as admission by the employing department of the petitioner, because it is not issued by the said department. May be that the District Election Officer took the job of a clerk from the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance upon, Annexures A-8 and A-9, two documents which he received from respondent No.2, in response to his application for supply of information, under the Right to Information Act. The two communications, Annexures A8 and A9, suggest that petitioner had been required to type 52 numbers of estimates, consisting of 769 pages from 5.7.1990 to 13.3.2003.

That means, during the period of 13 years, he typed only 769 pages or say, about 60 pages a year. The fact belies the claim of the petitioner that he was required to do the job of a clerk throughout the period of his employment as Beldar and supports respondents’ plea that the petitioner was required to do the job of typist, occasionally.

7. For the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial