IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1016 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.11.2009 Malkeet Chand ……….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another ……….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. Advocate General. Per Deepak Gupta, J. The short question involved in this petition is whether the writ petitioner should be regularized as a Pump Operator or not? As per the mandays chart produced by the State itself, it is apparent that the petitioner, herein was engaged as daily wages Supervisor on 21.6.1978 and worked for a period of 153 days during the said year. In the year 1979, he worked both as 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 Supervisor and Work Inspector. Even in the subsequent year till 30.6.1985 the petitioner worked on daily wages with the State for more than 240 days on different capacities, some times as Chowkidar, some times as Work Mistry, some times as Beldar, some times as Fitter, some times as Black Smith, some times as Mortar Mate, some times as Supervisor, etc. However, undisputedly from 1.7.1985 onwards, he was engaged as Assistant Pump Operator which post was converted to Pump Operator and continued to work as such till his retirement on 30.4.1996. The petitioner had filed the original application before the Tribunal praying that he be regularized in accordance with the scheme approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya and Others vs. State of H.P. and others, 1994 (2) SLR 377. During the pendency of the original application the petitioner was regularized as Beldar w.e.f. 1.1.1994 and the Tribunal dismissed his application as having become infructuous. The petitioner filed review petition that he should be regularized as Pump Operator which review petition was rejected. Hence, the present writ petition. 3 This Court in Gauri Dutt Vs State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366 decided the following question:- “Where if an employee has rendered service on daily waged basis on 2 separate posts in lower and higher scales, can the employee be given benefit of the service rendered by him in the lower scale and be regularized in the higher scale by combining the two services after 10 years? The aforesaid question was answered in the following terms:- “After considering all the pros and cons and keeping in view the fact that various anomalous situations may arise we are of the considered view that when 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 rates basis in the higher scale and claim work charge status in the higher scale of completion of 10 years of continuous service in the said scale. In the examples given above employee (A) may prefer to accept work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.2001 even in the lower scale of beldar because otherwise he may have to wait for 9 years before he is granted work charge status. On the other hand, employee (B) in the second example may prefer to delay the grant of work charge status by one year so that he can get work charge status in the higher scale. We feel that in each case the choice should be left to the employee. However, if the employee on being given a change to exercise his option does not convey his option within 30 days, he shall be granted work charge in the lower scale by combining the service rendered in both the scales. This answers the fourth question.” 4 It is, therefore, obvious that this Court held that it is for the employee to choose whether he wants to be given work charge status on the lower post by combining his service for the entire period or whether he wants to be granted the work charge on the higher post by only taking into consideration the service rendered by him in the higher post. Therefore, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:- That the petitioner shall within two months from today exercise his option in writing and submit the same to the Executive Engineer, Division No. 1, District Una, with a copy to the Secretary (I&PH) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh clearly indicating therein that whether he wants to be regularized as Pump Operator by taking into consideration only the service rendered by him as Pump Operator. In case, no option is exercised, it would be deemed that the petitioner is satisfied with the decision taken by the State Government. In case, the petitioner exercises such option he shall be granted work charge status w.e.f. 1.7.1995. The amount due to him on his being regularized as Pump Operator be paid to the petitioner 5 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of his option failing which the State shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% from today. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. November 24, 2009 (V.K. Ahuja), J. (vs)