CWP (T) No.16602 of 2008. 24.12.2010 Present: Mr. Y.P. Dhaulta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. In the reply, it is contended by the respondents that petitioner had voluntarily accepted his appointment as a Beldar. However, there is no dispute that petitioner worked both as Mason and Beldar with the respondents from the year 1989. From the man days chart annexed by the respondents it is evident that at least w.e.f. 1.4.1989 till the year 1999, he had completed more than 240 days of continuous service in each calendar year preceding 12 months. 2. This Court in Gauri Dutt Versus State of H.P, HLJ 2008 (1) 366, has held that in such like cases respondents have to give an offer and seek option of an employee for being considered for appointment at the appropriate post. Consequently direction issued in Gauri Dutt (supra), shall mutatis mutandis apply to the instant case also. Consequential action be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 3. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge December 24, 2010 rana/cs