IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 1190 of 2008. Decided on: 26th April, 2011. _____________________________________________________ Roshan Lal. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : None. For the respondents. : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner was engaged as Beldar in the respondent- department on 1st September, 1995. Thereafter, he started discharging the duties of Fitter w.e.f. 31st July, 1997. Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that though he has worked for almost 10 years as Fitter, however, his services have been regularized as Beldar on 20th January, 2007. 2. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General .has strenuously argued that since the petitioner has joined his duties as Beldar on 1st September, 1995, his services could only be regularized as Beldar. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Vikas Rathore. In fact, in this case, as is evident from mandays-chart, i.e., Annexure R-1, petitioner has continuously worked as Fitter w.e.f. 31st July, 1997. He has completed almost 10 years’ up to 2007. In view of this, it was necessary for the respondent-department to seek his option 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. - 2 - whether he would like to be regularized as Fitter or Beldar. This option has, admittedly, not been sought from the petitioner. 3. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to seek petitioner’s option as per the ratio of the judgment rendered by this Court in Gauri Dutt & Ors. Versus State H.P., Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366, within a period of one week from today. Once the petitioner exercises his option, thereafter, his case shall be considered for regularization/conferment of work charge status to the higher post, i.e., Fitter, in accordance with law. Since the petitioner is not represented by any counsel, the Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the petitioner, to enable him to do the needful. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge April 26, 2011. (bhupender) - 3 - `