RAJIV SHARMA, J.

(1.) Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he had been working as Mason on daily wage basis since 1965. However, he was conferred with work charge status of Beldar vide memorandum dated 6.8.1984. Similarly, situate persons were regularized as Masons.

(2.) Mr. Jeevesh Sharma has strenuously argued that since his client had been working as Mason, his services 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No were also required to be regularized as Mason and not Beldar with effect from 6.8.1984.

(3.) Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner had rightly been conferred the work charge status as Beldar with effect from 6.8.1984 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Mason with effect from 20.3.1998.

(4.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.

(5.) Mr. Jeevesh Sharma has placed on record copy of letter dated 20.3.1998 whereby his client has been promoted on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee as Mason. A specific admission has been made by the respondents in reply to para 6 (iii) of the petition that the petitioner had worked as Mason on daily wage basis till his appointment as work charged Beldar in August, 1984. In view of this, petitioner was required to be regularized as Mason and not Beldar. Respondents have waited for 13 long years to promote the petitioner to the post of Mason vide office order dated 20.3.1998. Petitioner has worked for about 19 years as daily wage Mason at the time when he was conferred the work charge status of Beldar. Few daily paid Masons were regularized in the year 1995 and petitioner has been over looked at that time. Respondents have not spelt out what was the criteria on the basis of which these persons were regularized as Masons.

(6.) Mr. P.M. Negi has also argued that the petitioner had accepted the conferment of work charge status in the year 1984 and at this stage he is estopped from raking up this issue. The Court is of the considered view that the petitioner can not waive his fundamental/legal rights to be conferred with work charge status of Mason since he had already worked for 19 years.

(7.) Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are d

irected to consider the case of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status with all the consequential benefits with effect from August, 1984. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any interest on the monetary benefits. No costs.