JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- (1). That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the applicant w.e.f. June, 2001 with all consequential benefits including seniority and monetary benefits. 2. Respondents are opposing the petition on the ground that petitioner had unsuccessfully assailed their action before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and as such was Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? not entitled to the benefits of service rendered by him prior to 1997 or 2002. 3. Stand taken by the respondents, to say the least is unfair and contrary to the decision of its own Secretary. 4. It is not in dispute that petitioner was originally, prior to 31.10.1994, engaged on daily wage basis. It is his grievance that the respondents orally and illegally terminated his services not once but twice i.e. in the year 1997 and 2002 and thus he was constrained to knock the doors of justice for appropriate relief. 5. Be that as it may be, vide order dated 6.11.2002 (Annexure A-X) respondents themselves took a decision to the effect that :“In pursuance of the revival of work charge establishment by the board vide its order No. 55/HPSEB(Sectt)/97 dated 29.7.1997 endorsed vide No. HPSEB (Sectt)2-42/9742806-43006 dated 29.7.1997 it has been decided to revive work charge categories in the board to accommodate daily wagers engaged initially upto 31.10.1994, I am therefore, to convey the approval of the board for the appointment of 348 No.s workmen on work charge basis (i.e. electrical, T. Mates345, helper sub-Stn.-1 and cleaner-1 No.) against the post(s) shown below in respect of the following division(s) under your control.” Undisputedly petitioner’s name figures in the said list. The decision is taken by the Deputy Director (Personnel). 6. The decision is taken by the Deputy Director (Personnel). 6. Further while deciding the petitioner’s case, on the directions issued by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3027 of 2002 filed by petitioner, the Secretary of the respondent/Board himself took the decision vide order dated 6.8.2003 (Annexure A-1) to the effect that :- “In view of the facts and circumstances, admission on the part of the representative of the field office, it is clear that the services of the applicant both the times i.e. during 1997 as well as during 2002 were terminated in contravention to Section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, read with clause 14 of the standing order framed by the Board and as such the claim of the applicant for his re-engagement on daily wages basis and further regularisation on completion of required service as per scheme of the Board merits consideration. The representation of the applicant, therefore, is accepted and he is ordered to be reengaged on daily wages.” 7. Having come to the conclusion that on both the occasions petitioner’s termination was illegal and that he was entitled to the benefit of re-engagement, now it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to contend that petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the service rendered by him since inception. It is not in dispute that petitioner has successfully completed the period of eligibility for regularisation/according work charged status in accordance with the policy decision of the respondents. It may have been under the directions of the Court, but then this is their own understanding. 8. Consequently present petition needs to be allowed. Respondents are directed to accord benefit of work charge status/regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. June, 2001 the date on which he undisputedly completed eight years of his service. All consequential action, including disbursement of monetary benefits be positively taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.