IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP-T No. 2570 of 2008. [OA No.736 of 2003] Date of Decision: 27th July, 2010. _______________________________________________________ Shri Kesh Raj ..Petitioner. Versus HP State Forest Corporation Ltd. and others. …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes, For the petitioner: Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Bhupinder Singh, Advocate. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J. (Oral). The petitioner is a matriculate and was engaged on 10th June, 1987 as Chowkidar on daily wages in Forest Working Division, Hamirpur. He continued working as such, but later came to know that many of his juniors similarly situate daily wage workers were designated as Office Helpers by the respondents-Corporation. Thus, he made the representation to the competent authority vide Annexure A-1 dated 3rd December, 1994. The Managing Director of the respondents- Corporation also upgraded the petitioner as Office Helper on the ground that his juniors were already working as Helpers on daily-wages. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner continued performing his duties as Office Helper. Consequent upon the completion of ten years of service on daily wages vide Annexure A-2 dated 12th November, 1998, the petitioner was offered the post of Office Helper in the pay scale of Rs.3120-5160 per month plus other 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - allowances on regular basis, as admissible under the rules from time to time on the terms and conditions contained therein. He accepted this offer and joined his duties on the same day. This appears to have been done with prior approval of respondent No.1. Thus vide order dated 23rd November, 1998 respondent No.3 fixed his pay at Rs.3120/- per month. The next increment was shown due on 1st November, 1999. 3. Vide letter Annexure A-4 dated 16th October, 2000 his services were regularized as Office Helper with effect from 12th January, 1998 in the initial pay scale of Rs.3120-5160. But later in the year 2002, vide letter No.Estt/P.F./303-05 dated 9th April, 2002 (Annexure A-5) the petitioner was issued a show cause notice as to why his regularization as Office Helper be not cancelled and in turn orders of his regularization as Chowkidar be issued pursuant to a decision taken by respondent No.2 to remove the anomalies in regularization of daily wagers because where the daily wagers who had worked for maximum period in one post, should have been regularized on the same post and the petitioner was regularized after completion of ten years of daily wage services, whereas he had worked as Chowkidar for the maximum period. 4. The petitioner submitted his reply vide Annexure A-6, but vide Annexure A-7 dated 3rd April, 2003 on the basis of the recommendation of the Screening Committee the petitioner’s appointment/regularization as Office Helper was cancelled. He was re-designated as Chowkidar retrospectively, i.e., 12th November, 1998 and it was also - 3 - ordered that he shall be paid the salary of Chowkidar with immediate effect and the past salary already paid over and above shall not be recovered from him. As such, he filed Original Application before the erstwhile Tribunal for quashing the aforesaid orders. 5. In reply, the respondents admitted the aforesaid facts but contested the petition on delay and averred that the petitioner cannot be allowed to open the issue at a belated stage. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 7. In fact, the petitioner has challenged the office order dated 3rd April, 2003 Annexure A-7, in this petition, which was issued in the month of April, 2003 itself, therefore, in my opinion, there is no delay which disentitles the petitioner to seek the remedy, as such the ground is merit-less, hence rejected. 8. In so far as the merit of the case is concerned, the proposition raised in this case is no more res integra. 9. In Gauri Dutt v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and other connected matters (CWP No.778/2006), Latest HLJ 2008(HP) 366, the Division Bench of this Court on the similar 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). - 4 - 10. 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 that if the petitioner opts to be regularized as a helper and his services as such are counted (in that case) from 1.11.1988, he shall be liable to be regularized as helper with effect from the same date. 11. Ms. Archna Dutt, learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that she has instructions from the petitioner to state that the petitioner would opt to be regularized as an Office Helper even if otherwise his services as such are counted with effect from the date of his regularization as Helper. 12. Keeping in view Gauri Dutt and Manjit Singh’s cases supra, and the option exercised by the petitioner through his learned Counsel, I direct that the respondents shall regularize the petitioner as 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. 13. 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. 14. For the foregoing reasons the impugned order Annexure A-7 is quashed and set aside. In the above terms, the petition is allowed. July 27th, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)