28.4.2009 Present: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A. G. for the respondents CWP(T) No.3676/2008 (OA No.96/96) In my view, this case is squarely covered by a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Gauri Dutt vs. State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2008 HP 366, wherein the Court has held as under:- “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 rated basis in the higher scale and claim work charge status in the higher scale on 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 chance to exercise his option does not convey his option within 30 days, he shall be granted work charge status in the lower scale by combining the service rendered in both the scales. This answers the fourth question.” Petitioner admittedly worked as Pipe Fitter during the year 1985. Prior to that, between the period 1982 to 1985, he worked as Beldar. Inspite of having worked as Pipe Fitter, he was again given the work charge status of a Beldar which is a lower post. This was done on 2.3.1995. The respondents have not explained the reason as to why after having promoted the petitioner as Pipe Fitter he was accorded the work charge status of a Beldar. It is not their case that no post of Pipe Fitter was vacant and available as on that date. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Gauri Dutt (supra), the respondents are directed to seek an option from the petitioner. The respondents shall seek the petitioner’s option within a period of two months. Thereafter, they shall take all consequential actions, in accordance with law, within a period of three months. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. April 28, 2009 (rana)