IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 4342/2008 (OA 948/97) Date of Decision : May 7, 2009 Sh. Thothi Ram and another Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. K. B. Khajuria, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondent : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General for respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) As per the admitted case of the respondent, petitioner worked as Beldar, Mate, Chowkidar and Road Supervisor on different dates between the year 1984 and 1994. Annexure R-1 evidences the said fact. Vide order dated 23.4.1997 (Annexures A-10 and A-11) the Superintending Engineer reviewed its earlier decision whereby the petitioner was accorded work charge status as Road Inspector. As a consequence thereof, petitioner was brought into the regular cadre of work charge post of a Mate. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 This Court in Gauri Dutt and others versus State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366, in para 20 has held that when an employee completes 10 years of continuous service combined in two scales, an option should be given to him to either accept work charge status in the lower scale or continue to work on daily rated basis in the higher scale and claim work charge status in the higher scale on the completion of 10 years of continuous service in the said scale. Admittedly in the present case no such option was given to the petitioner. As such Annexures A-10 and Annexure A-11 are quashed. Respondent is directed to seek an option from the petitioners within a period of six weeks from today. From the date of communication petitioner shall exercise his option within a period of three weeks, thereafter respondent shall pass a reasoned order. Petition stands allowed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 7, 2009 (PK)