IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 5181 of 2008 Date of decision: 20.09.2010 Kishor Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. K.S. Banyal, Advocate. For respondents-State: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner, by means of this petition, prays that he was working as a clerk in the erstwhile Kutlehar Forest and that his services should have been taken over as Clerk. 2. It is not disputed that the State of Himachal Pradesh took over the Kutlehar Forest vide H.P. Kutlehar Forest (Acquisition of Management) Act, 1992 which came into force w.e.f. 11.3.1995. Thereafter, the services of the employees of the Kutlehar Forest were also taken over though disputes as to the posts etc. which they were holding were decided much thereafter. Respondent No. 5 challenged the said Act by filing a writ petition before this Court. 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 The employees of the forest did not join service in the State till 7th February, 1996. Through this petition, the petitioner prays that he should be treated as a Clerk. This petition was filed before the erstwhile Tribunal on 31.7.1998. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner was offered the post of Timber Watcher by the State of Himachal Pradesh on regular basis. This offer was made to him vide letter dated 19.12.1998 and on the same date, the petitioner expressed his willingness to accept the said offer on the following terms: “PROFORMA FOR WILLINGNESS I Kishor Kumar, Son of Shri Duni Chand, resident of Village Bheth, Post office Rajnagar, Tehsil Chamba, District Chamba, HP,have carefully gone through the contents of letter No. 11621 Dated 19.12.98 and show my willingness for the placement in the HP Forest Deptt. as mentioned in the said letter. sd/- Dated: 19.12.98 Signature Place: Una Name: Kishor Kumar” 3. The petitioner did not reserve his right to prosecute this petition nor did he accept the said offer subject to his rights in this petition. Therefore, by accepting the post of Timber Watcher on regular basis, it can be deemed that he has foregone his claim for being regularized as Clerk. Therefore, the petition is rejected. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge September 20, 2010 (rajni) 3