IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 4986/2008 Decided on:5.8.2010. Jagdeep Kumar and others. ...Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Ms. Salochana Kaundal, Advocate vice Mr. O.P. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. Justice Rajiv Sharma,J. (oral) Petitioner No.1 was engaged as Beldar with effect from 2.1.1982. He served in various capacities as Helper, Fitter Grade-I, Workshop Mechanical Grade-I etc. He was offered temporary work- charged post of Mechanical Grade-II (Auto) in the pay scale of Rs. 950- 1800 on the recommendations of the Screening Committee of the respondent-Department. He was also confirmed. Petitioner No.2 was appointed as daily waged workman and he has worked in various capacities as Helper, Electrician, Fitter (Auto) etc. Since he was working as Electrician (Auto), he was offered post of Electrician Grade- II (Auto) with effect from 1.1.1994 on the basis of the recommendations made by the Screening Committee in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1800. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 Petitioner No.3 was also appointed on daily wage and has worked as Helper and Store Munshi. He was given work charge status with effect from 1.1.1994 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1800. Petitioners No.2 and 3 were also confirmed on the basis of the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 8.9.1997. Petitioners were served with office memorandums dated 25.3.1998 whereby their options were sought to be regularized as Beldar with effect from 1.1.1994. 2. Case of the respondent-State, in a nutshell, is that since petitioners have worked in different capacities, they could not be regularized against the respective posts, i.e. Mechanical Grade-II (Auto), Electrician Grade-II (Auto) and Store Keeper. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 4. It will be pertinent to mention that the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had stayed the operation of memorandums dated 25.3.1998 on 17.4.1998. The petitioners had been working in the same capacities for the last more than 16 years. Respondent-Department was aware of the duties being discharged by the petitioners at the time when they were regularized. Their cases have been recommended by the Screening Committee for their regularization. 5. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that even at this stage petitioners can be permitted to give their options, as per Gauri Dutt’s case reported in Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366. This plea of Mr. R.K. Sharma cannot be accepted taking into consideration that the petitioner had already been working against the respective posts for the last 16 years. The respondent- State was aware of all the facts at the time when the suitability of the 3 petitioners was adjudged to be considered against the respective posts. They have also been confirmed in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1800. 6. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the issuance of Annexures A-7, A-8 and A-9 dated 25.3.1998 after permitting the petitioners to work as Mechanical Grade-II (Auto), Electrician Grade-II (Auto) and Store Keeper, respectively for more than four years was arbitrary exercise of powers. The power is coupled with duty. The decisions to be taken by the authorities must be fair, rationale and are required to be taken in good faith. Petitioner, at this belated stage, cannot be permitted to exercise their options again on the basis of Gauri Dutt’s case (supra) since they have worked for 16 years against the posts of Mechanical Grade-II (Auto), Electrician Grade-II (Auto) and Store Keeper, respectively. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexures A-7, A-8 and A-9 dated 25.3.1998 are quashed and set aside. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma) Judge. 5.8.2010. *awasthi*