IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.3613 of 2008 (OA(M) No. 28/1996) Judgment reserved on: 20.7.2009 Date of decision: 11.8. 2009. Mohan Lal …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P.& Others ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. and Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioner by way of this petition has prayed direction to the respondents for regularization of his services as Pump Operator w.e.f. 31.1.1995 and to pay the salary of regular appointed Pump Operator to the petitioner on the basis of equal pay for equal work for the period he actually worked as such. 2. The petition was earlier filed as Original Application (M) No. 28 of 1996 in the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which was lateron abolished and on transfer, the Original Application (M) No. 28 of 1996 has been registered in this Court as CWP (T) No. 3613 of 2008. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was initially engaged as Class-IV Helper in I&PH Sub Division, Dharampur and he worked as such upto July, 1985. Thereafter, the petitioner was engaged as Assistant Pump Operator on daily wage basis and he worked as Assistant Pump Operator upto January, 1986. The petitioner was engaged as Pump Operator in February 1986 and since then he had been working as Pump Operator with the respondents. On completion of 10 years service, the petitioner has been regularized as Helper instead of Pump Operator. The petitioner is entitled to regularization as Pump Operator after completion of 10 years of service with the respondents as Pump Operator. The petitioner is also entitled to wages of Pump Operator on the basis of equal pay for equal work. 4. The respondents No.1 to 3 contested the petition by filing reply and by way of preliminary submission, they have submitted that the petitioner had worked as daily rated worker in different capacities such as Beldar, Helper, Chowkidar, Assistant Pump Operator and Pump Operator etc. vide Annexure RB and had not worked 10 years continuously with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year as Pump Operator, he has been rightly appointed as work charged helper in the lowest grade in the Government vide Annexure P-1. On merits, it has been submitted that the petitioner has been appointed as work charged helper in I&PH Division, Sarkaghat since 1.1.1994. The respondents while denying the claim of the petitioner have defended their action for giving work-charge status of helper to petitioner. 3 5. The details of manday’s of petitioner from the year 1982 to 1993 are given in Annexure RB. The perusal of Annexure RB indicates that the petitioner had worked on different capacities such as Beldar, Helper, Chowkidar, Assistant Pump Operator and Pump Operator from 1982 to 1993. Annexure RB further provides that the petitioner started working as Pump Operator from January, 1989. In Gauri Dutt & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366, the Division Bench of this Court has held that where an employee completes 10 years of continuous service combined in two scales, an option should be given to the employee to either accept work charge status in the lower scale or he may continue to work on daily rated basis in the higher scale and claim work charge status in the higher scale on completion of ten years of continuous service in the said scale. The choice should be left to the employee. However, if the employee on being given a chance to exercise his option does not convey his option within 30 days, he shall be granted work-charged status in the lower scale by combining the service rendered in both the scales. 6. In the present case, the petitioner has already been given work-charged status as Helper vide office order dated 31.1.1995 Annexure P-1. The petitioner has not specifically pleaded that whenever he worked as Pump Operator, he was not paid wages of Pump Operator. Therefore, claim of petitioner for payment of wages of Pump Operator is rejected. The respondents have not admitted that petitioner had worked for more than 10 years as Pump Operator. It appears that the petitioner is not satisfied with the work- charge status of Helper, therefore, in light of Gauri Dutt (supra), the 4 respondents are directed to take the option of the petitioner within two months from today whether he would like to accept the work- charge status of Helper as already granted to him on 31.1.1995 or he would like to work on daily rates basis as Pump Operator and shall claim work-charge status of Pump Operator on completion of ten years of continuous service as Pump Operator. In case, the petitioner shall not give option within 30 days from the date of service of notice seeking his option, as directed above, then his claim for work-charge status as Pump Operator shall be deemed to have been waived. However, it is made clear that in that situation in case the petitioner is entitled to work-charge status as Pump Operator, after 31.1.1995 under some scheme of respondent No.1 or otherwise under law then the petitioner shall be entitled to work- charge status as Pump Operator after 31.1.1995. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. ( Kuldip Singh ), August 11, 2009, Judge. (GR)