CWP (T) No.6962 of 2008 7.9.2010 Present: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.R.Thakur, Advocate, for the respondents. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter in issue is squarely covered by decisions rendered by this Court in Smt. Padma Devi vs. H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. and others, CWP (T) No.8364 of 2008, decided on 27.7.2010 and Smt. Bimla Devi vs. H.P. State Forest Corporation, CWP (T) No.8436 of 2008, decided on 27.7.2010, copies of which are taken on record. 2. Some of the facts are similar. In the present case petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar on daily wages with the respondent-Corporation w.e.f. 13.6.1996. In terms of Annexure A-1, the post of Chowkidar, which the petitioner was holding was re- designated as Office Helper. According to the petitioner, he was discharging the duties of Helper in the office of respondent No.2. 3. In Smt. Padma Devi (supra), it has been held as under:- “4. The respondents have admitted that petitioner was regularized as Office Helper on completion of ten years as daily wages, but it was stated that due to inadvertence she had not completed ten years on the higher post because as per the Government policy if the daily waged worker has not completed ten years in the higher post he was to be regularized on the lower post where he had worked maximum. Therefore, the petitioner was to be regularized as Chowkidar and not as Office Helper. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 6. The proposition raised in this case is no more res integra. 7. In Gauri Dutt v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and other connected matters (CWP No.778/2006), L atest HLJ 2008(HP) 366, the Division Bench of this Court on the identical issue held as follows: “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.” (Emphasis supplied). 8. Further, in Manjit Singh v. HP State Forest Corporation and another, decided on 3rd March, 2008 (CWP No.456 of 1996) Division Bench of this Court following Gauri Dutt’s case supra, held, if the petitioner opts to be regularized as Office Helper and his services as such are counted (in that case) from 1.11.1988, he shall be liable to be regularized as Office Helper with effect from the same date. 9. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that he has instructions from the petitioner to state that the petitioner would opt to be regularized as an Office Helper even if otherwise her services as such are counted with effect from the earlier date of regularization as Office Helper. 10. Keeping in view Gauri Dutt and Manjit Singh’s cases supra, and the option exercised by the petitioner through her learned Counsel, I direct that the respondents shall regularize the petitioner as an Office Helper on the date of completion of required period prescribed for regularization, as per the policy in the year 2000-2001, as in force with consequential benefits. Thus ordered accordingly. 11. The post of the helper is now designated as Clerk. Needless to say if that be so respondent No.2- Corporation shall treat the petitioner alike, as other similar situate colleagues.” 4. There is no dispute that the petitioner was regularized as Chowkidar on 31.12.1997. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had worked as Office Helper, an option as laid down in Gauri Dutt (supra) had to be obtained. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has instructions from petitioner to state that the petitioner would opt to be regularized as an Office Helper even if otherwise her services as such are counted with effect from the earlier date of regularization as Office Helper. 5. Hence, the directions issued in Smt. Padma Devi (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to the instant case also. Necessary consequential action be positively taken within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 6. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of. 7th September, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.