IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.8436 of 2008. [OA No.921 of 2002] Date of Decision: 27th July, 2010. _______________________________________________________ Smt. Bimla Devi .. Petitioner. Versus HP State Forest Corporation Ltd. and others ..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. J.R. Thakur, Advocate. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J. (Oral). The petitioner was engaged as a Chowkidar in the month of March, 1987 on daily wage worker with the respondents-Corporation, but she was discharging the duties of office Clerk/office Helper. Consequent upon the completion of ten years of service on daily wages vide Annexure A-1 dated 31st December, 1997 her services were regularized as Office Helper against temporary post. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner continued performing her duties as Office Helper. Vide letter Annexure A-2 dated 13th February, 2002 the petitioner required to show cause as to why her regularization as Office Helper be not cancelled and orders of his regularization as Chowkidar be issued pursuant to a decision taken by respondent No.3 to remove 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - the anomalies in regularization of daily wagers, where the daily wagers who had worked for maximum period in one post, should be regularized on the same post, and the petitioner was regularized after completion of ten years of daily wage services, she had worked as Chowkidar for the maximum period. 3. The petitioner submitted her reply to the show cause notice vide Annexure A-3, but vide Annexure A-4 dated 21st May, 2002 on the basis of the Government instructions contained in letter No.Per (AP) C-B (2)-2/97 dated 11th December, 1997 the petitioner’s appointment/regularization as Office Helper was cancelled. She was re-designated as Chowkidar in the pay scale of Rs.2620-4140 per month from the date of her regularization as Office Helper and it was directed that the past salary already paid over and above shall not be recovered from her. As such, she filed Original Application before the erstwhile Tribunal for quashing the aforesaid orders. The operation of the impugned order Annexure A-4 dated 21st May, 2002 was stayed by the erstwhile Tribunal. 4. In reply, the respondents submitted that the petitioner worked as Chowkidar till May, 1993 for about six years and two months and thereafter as Office Helper till December, 1997, i.e., for four years and six months, therefore, as per instructions of the Government (respondent No.1) she was rightly regularized as Chowkidar on the lower rank where she worked for a larger period. Thus defended the order impugned. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. - 3 - 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), Latest HLJ 2008(HP) 366, the Division Bench of this Court on the similar facts 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) by a 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. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that he has instructions from the petitioner to state that she would opt to be regularized as Office Helper even if otherwise her services as such are counted with effect from the earlier date of regularization as 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 - 4 - 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 in force with consequential benefits. Ordered accordingly. 11. Since 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. 12. For the foregoing reasons the impugned order Annexure A-4 dated 21st May, 2002 is quashed and set aside. In the above terms, the petition stands allowed. July 27th, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)