ORDER : 1. The petitioner was engaged, as daily waged Mortar Mate with respondents-department, w.e.f. January, 1989. Though, from the initial date of engagement of the petitioner he worked as Mortar Mate, however, during October, 1989 to November, 1990, his designation has been shown as Chowkidar and Beldar, i.e. Class-IV posts, but w.e.f. December, 1990 to 13.03.2000, he again worked as Class-III on different posts and lastly the respondents have regularized his services, vide office letter dated 26.04.2000, w.e.f. 01.04.1998, as Beldar, instead of Mortar Mate/Plumber. 2. The petitioner has represented to the authorities for grant of work charge/regularization on the higher posts, i.e. Mortar Mate/Work Inspector/Plumber, instead of Beldar, but, the authorities did not accede to the request of the petitioner. Accordingly, he filed original application before the erstwhile Tribunal, which was registered as OA No. 1786/2000. During the pendency of aforesaid case, the officers of the department pressurized the petitioner and also assured him that they are considering his case for grant of higher status from back date, thus, the applicant withdrew his application. However, despite assurance given by the respondents, they have not fulfilled their promise. The petitioner has also made repeated representations to the respondents for grant of work charge status on the higher post, but the respondents have not considered his case. Consequently, the petitioner filed a civil writ petition before this Court, which was registered as CWP No. 5105/2010 and was disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to examine the matter in the light of the decision in Gauri Dutt and Others vs. State of H.P. within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of the judgment. 3. In view of the directions passed by this Court, the petitioner has submitted copy of judgment to respondent No. 2. However, the respondents vide office order dated 29.04.2011 regularized the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 04.01.2006, instead of 01.01.2000 as per Mool Raj Upadhaya and Gauri Dutt’s case. In the said office order it has also been mentioned that the earlier appointment as Beldar w.e.f. 01.04.1998 shall now stands withdrawn and the excess pay so drawn by him w.e.f. 01.04.1998 as regular Beldar minus wages of Plumber for the said period is liable to be recovered in accordance with law from him after re-fixing the pay as Plumber. 4. 4. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner again preferred a petition before this Court, being CWP No. 3413/2011, which was later on transferred to erstwhile Tribunal and registered as T.A. No. 3935/2015 and vide order dated 17.11.2015 stands allowed. The respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as Plumber w.e.f. 01.01.2000 with all consequential benefits. 5. The respondents challenged the order passed by the learned Tribunal before this Court by filing CWP No. 469 of 2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 01.06.2017 by observing that impugned judgment/order dated 17.11.2015, passed by H.P. Administrative Tribunal, Shimla in T.A. No. 3935 of 2015, titled as Shiv Raj Singh vs. State of H.P. and Others, is to the effect that there is no adjudication of rights of the parties and the only direction being, consideration of the petitioner’s case in terms of the policies framed by the State, as also directions issued by this Court in case titled as Gauri Dutt and Others vs. State of H.P. 6. After passing of judgment dated 01.06.2017, the respondents vide office order 06.11.2017, rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of work charge status as Plumber w.e.f. 01.01.2000, constraining the petitioner to file the instant case. 7. The respondents in reply to the petition have averred that the petitioner was afforded due opportunity of personal hearing on 15.07.2017 and in view of the detailed factual position, as well as the gravity of law, the claim of the petitioner was considered and rejected through a detailed speaking order. It has been further averred that the petitioner was rightly regularized as Plumber Class-III, in view of the ratio laid down in Gauri Dutt’s case that too as per his own option. It has been averred that w.e.f. January, 1989 to November, 1990, the petitioner worked on different capacities, like Mortar Mate, Chowkidar and Beldar, w.e.f. December, 1990 to July, 1994 he worked as Motar Mate, w.e.f. August, 1994 to September, 1994, he worked as Assistant Fitter and w.e.f. October, 1994 to 13.03.2000, as Plumber. Thus his services were also made work charge in corresponding lowest grade/scale of pay, as per the regularization policy of Government upon verdict of Mool Raj’s case in lowest category of Beldar, which he also accepted without any protest. Lastly, a prayer for dismissal of the petition is made. 8. Thus his services were also made work charge in corresponding lowest grade/scale of pay, as per the regularization policy of Government upon verdict of Mool Raj’s case in lowest category of Beldar, which he also accepted without any protest. Lastly, a prayer for dismissal of the petition is made. 8. In rejoinder to the reply, contents of the reply are denied and contents of the petition were reasserted. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records in detail. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was required to be given regular status of Plumber/Mortar Mate, i.e. Class-III post, from the date he completed 10 years of service, i.e. 2000, as he was working on the said post from the year, 1989, however, the action of the respondents granting him regularization as Plumber w.e.f. 04.01.2007 is contrary and against the judgment of this Court in Gauri Dutt vs. State of H.P. case. He has further argued that the action of the respondents is also in violation of well settled principles of law. He has argued that impugned order dated 06.11.2017 (Annexure A11) is required to be set aside by directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Plumber w.e.f. 01.01.2000, instead of 04.01.2007 with all consequential benefits. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 842 of 2019, titled Ashok Kumar vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 27.11.2020. 11. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that as per Annexure R1, the petitioner did not continuously work on Class-III post, as claimed by him, but also on lower post and as such, he was rightly regularized w.e.f. 04.01.2007. He has also brought to the notice of this Court an undertaking (Annexure P2) given by the petitioner, wherein, he himself opted his regularization as Plumber from the date his juniors were offered the said post. He has further argued that the petitioner is bound by his own undertaking (Annexure R2) and the petition deserves dismissal. 12. He has also brought to the notice of this Court an undertaking (Annexure P2) given by the petitioner, wherein, he himself opted his regularization as Plumber from the date his juniors were offered the said post. He has further argued that the petitioner is bound by his own undertaking (Annexure R2) and the petition deserves dismissal. 12. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that during the years 1989 to 2000, the petitioner worked for some months on lower post for the reasons beyond his control, but mostly he has worked on Class-III post. He has further argued that Annexure R2 was given by the petitioner under duress and it was not an independent undertaking, as it is clear from the fact that immediately thereafter the petitioner has challenged Annexure P11. 13. At the very outset, it would be apt to refer to question No. 4 raised by the Division Bench of this Court in Gauri Dutt’s case, relevant portion whereof reads as under: “4 Where if an employee has rendered service on daily waged basis on 2 separate posts in lower and higher scales, can the employee be given benefit of the service rendered by him in the lower scale and be regularized in the higher scale by combining the two services after 10 years.” 14. The answer to the aforesaid question was replied by the Division Bench as under: “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 rated 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. 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 fell that in each case the choice should be left to the employee. However, if the employee on being given a chance to exercise his option does not convey his opinion 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 forth question.” 15. In the instant case, the petitioner was initially engaged in the month of January, 1989, as Mortar Mate on daily wage basis and worked as such, till September, 1989. Thereafter, w.e.f. October, 1989 to November, 1990 he worked as Chowkidar and Beldar. However, w.e.f. December, 1990 to 13.03.2000 he continuously worked as Mortar Mate, Assistant Fitter and Plumber, which are Class-III posts. 16. Admittedly, w.e.f. October, 1989 to November, 1990 the petitioner worked on a post in lower scale and his services qua that period are not to be taken into consideration for calculating the requisite years, but if his entire service as Class-III employee is considered, he has completed 10 years that too without any break and with 240 days in every calender year. 17. The similar issue came up before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 842 of 2019, titled Ashok Kumar vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 27.11.2020, wherein the learned Single Judge in Paras 12 and 13 of the judgment has held as under: “12. In Gauri Dutt’s case, the Division Bench has given example of cases where daily wager initially is appointed on lower scale and later on appointed on higher scale. But a case, like present one, wherein the employee initially and finally has been appointed to a post of higher scale and in between to a post of lower scale, has not been discussed and considered therein. But a case, like present one, wherein the employee initially and finally has been appointed to a post of higher scale and in between to a post of lower scale, has not been discussed and considered therein. However, the essence of the judgment is very clear that for regularization to the post of higher scale, services of employee against the post of higher scale are only to be taken into consideration, but not the services rendered against post having lower scale. Petitioner herein, has continuously served for 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 1.1.1984, though against different posts having different scales. 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and also ratio laid down in Gauri Dutt’s case, I am of the considered opinion that services of petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1984 to 30.6.1987 when he has served against the post of Surveyor, is required to be taken into consideration for counting his requisite years of service for the purpose of conferring work-charge status/regularization, because there is no break in his daily wage service since 1.1.1984 as though he was engaged against posts having different scales, but his services were never discontinued till his regularization and he had completed 240 days in every calendar year during this period. His services as daily waged Beldar w.e.f. 1.7.1987 to 28.2.1988 are not to be taken into consideration for calculating the requisite years, rather has to be excluded for the purpose of calculation of requisite years. But at the same time this period is not to be considered as a period when petitioner has not served at all for the purpose of continuance of service and completion of 240 days in each calendar year. Though, this period is to be taken in to consideration for purpose of continuation, but is not to be added to the period of service as Surveyor. Such eventuality has neither been placed before the Division Bench in Gauri Dutt’s case nor has been considered or elaborated in that case.” 18. As far as undertaking/option given by the petitioner is concerned, the same cannot be taken against the petitioner, as the State should act as model employer and anything which takes away the legally accrued rights of an employee, is not binding upon an employee, as the same will be in violation of the service law. As far as undertaking/option given by the petitioner is concerned, the same cannot be taken against the petitioner, as the State should act as model employer and anything which takes away the legally accrued rights of an employee, is not binding upon an employee, as the same will be in violation of the service law. Otherwise also, simply on the basis of undertaking/option given by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be denied the relief to which he is legally entitled. Thus, the law, as laid down in Gauri Dutt’s case clearly, applies to the facts of the present case. 19. Accordingly, I find merit in the instant case and the same is allowed, impugned office order dated 06.11.2017 (Annexure A11) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to grant work charge status to the petitioner on the post of Plumber w.e.f. 01.01.2000 alongwith all consequential benefits. 20. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.