IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 6612 of 2008(OA No.1316/2000) Decided on : 1.11.2010. Prem Singh Negi …Petitioner. Versus H.P.State Forest Corporation Ltd. ..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner : None. For the Respondent : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has prayed that respondent-Corporation may be directed to regularise the petitioner as driver w.e.f. 1995 in the regular pay scale, arrears of pay may be ordered to be paid to petitioner with 18% interest. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Chowkidar on daily wage basis in respondent-Corporation on 1.3.1988. He started discharging the duties of a driver in respondent-Corporation w.e.f. 1995. The petitioner was regularised as Peon by respondent vide office order dated 20.7.1999. It is the case of the petitioner that his case is covered by Mool Raj Upadhayay. 3. The respondent has filed the reply and has pleaded that petitioner was engaged as Chowkidar on 2.3.1988, he worked as such till 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2 18.11.1997 in Forest Working Division, Nahan. He was transferred on 19.11.1997 to the Head office and was engaged as daily wage driver since he possessed a valid driving licence. On completion of 9 years service in accordance with the Government instructions, he was considered by the screening committee for regularisation in the meeting held on 21.6.1999 and was regularised as Peon as per the request of the petitioner. According to respondent as per Government instructions Annexure R-I, a daily waged worker, who has worked for less than 9 years on a higher pay scale, he will be considered for regularisation by combining the service both in the lower scale and higher scale but he shall be regularised on a lower post. In these circumstances, the petitioner was regularised as Peon and not as driver. 4. The case of the petitioner is covered by Mool Raj Upadhayay vs. State of H.P. 1994 (2) S.L.R. 377 and Gauri Dutt & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. 2008(1) Latest H.L.J. 366. The petitioner has worked as Chowkidar/Peon/Driver, therefore, the case of the petitioner for regularisation is to be considered in accordance with Gauri Dutt (supra). The respondent has not placed contemporaneous record in support of the stand that petitioner was regularised as Peon on his request. In these circumstances, the respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation as Chowkidar/Peon/Driver in accordance with Gauri Dutt (supra) in two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment by the respondent. The petition stands disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any. ( Kuldip Singh ), November 1, 2010 Judge. (GR)