IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2246 of 2007. Date of decision: 11.3.2010. State of H.P. and Ors. …..Petitioners. Vs. Kirpa Ram Sharma …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent : None Dev Darshan Sud, Judge (Oral) The State is aggrieved by the judgment of the State Administrative Tribunal passed in OA No.1817 of 2007. When the case was argued before the Tribunal reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in CWP No.939/1996, titled Sohan Lal and another vs. State of H.P. and another. The petitioner-State was directed by the learned Tribunal to give work-charged status to the respondent herein. 2. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed reliance of the decision of this Court in Gauri Dutt & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. Latest H.L.J. 2008(1) 366. He has referred to the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes directions contained in paras 19-20 of the judgment which read as follows: 19. We have considered the arguments from all angles we are of the view that the employee cannot be given the benefit of combining service rendered in both the scales and be granted work charge status in the higher scale. We do, however, feel that at times it may be inequitable to grant the employee work charge status in the lower scale without giving him an option in this regard. We are giving two examples to illustrate two extreme positions. In example (i) we will deal an employee (A) who joined service on 1.1.1990. He works in the lower scale of Beldar from 1.1.1991 to 31.12.1999. He is thereafter posted as Supervisor in the higher scale. Should he be granted work charge status as beldar or as Supervisor w.e.f. 1.1.2001? The clear other example is converse. Supporting employee (B) has worked as beldar w.e.f. 1.1.1991 to 31.12.1991 and from 1.1.1992 he was worked as Supervisor. From which date should we grant him work charge status and in what scale ? It is obvious that in the first case the employee would not mind being granted work charge status even in the lower scale after 10 years w.e.f. 1.1.2000 since granted of work charge status would mean that he would get regular scale of pay. But should the employee be granted work charge status in the higher scale? We cannot agree with the preposition. 20. 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 rates basis in the higher scale and claim work charge status in the higher scale of 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 change 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”. 3. The submission made by learned Addl. Advocate General is that in terms of the authoritative pronouncement by this court, the directions issued by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the respondent has to be given the option of claiming work charged status against the post where he satisfies the criteria of putting in the requisite number of mandays and years. 4. This writ petition is partly allowed. The order of the l Tribunal dated 18.7.2007 is modified to the extent that the work charged status to the respondent as Receptionist shall be given from the due date in accordance with the decision in Gauri Dutt’s case supra. It is made clear that the State will not make any recovery of pay and other benefits which were granted to the respondent herein pursuant to the judgment passed in OA No.883/2000 by the learned Tribunal from the date he was granted work charge-status. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. ( Kuldip Singh ), ( Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. Judge. March 11, 2010 (sks)