JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J.(Oral): 1. By way of instant petition, which initially came to be filed before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal and now stands transferred to this Court and re-registered as CWPOA No.2737 of 2020, petitioner prayed for following reliefs:- “(i) That respondents may kindly be directed to regularized the services of the applicant w.e.f. March, 2012 i.e. on completion of eight years of service on daily wager basis. Or in alternate work charge status may kindly be given to applicant on completion of eight years of service on daily wager basis. (ii) That applicant may be given all consequence benefit like seniority, pay fixation, arrears etc.” 2. For having bird’s eye view, certain undisputed facts as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are as under:- (i) That in February 2004, petitioner was initially appointed as Chowkidar on Daily Wage Basis to watch & ward the office and store opened at project site of Sach MHEP (900 KW) (Pangi), District Chamba and since then he has been continuously working without any break with 240 days in every calendar year. Since, despite there being policy to regularize the services of Daily Wage employees after completion of eight years regular service, case of the petitioner was not considered for regularization by respondent No.2 as such, he filed representation (Annexure A-1). (ii) In September, 2013 petitioner alongwith another similarly situate employees made representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister for regularization. Vide communication dated 09.10.2013 addressed to Principal Secretary to Hon’ble Chief Minister Chief Executive Officer, HIMURJA intimated that the petitioner is being paid salary from the funds of Tribal Development Department against Sach Hydel Electric Project, however as and when post would be available with Himurja, case of the petitioner would be considered for regularization. (iii) Again in the month of September, 2014 petitioner made another representation (AnnexureA-3), praying therein for his regularization, but his case for regularization never came to be considered by the respondent. (iv) Vide communication dated 3.1.2015, respondent No.2 while expressing its inability to regularize the services of the petitioner, requested respondent No.1 i.e. Resident Commissioner, Pangi at Killar, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh to regularizes the services of the petitioner in its own establishment or in other departments under its control (Annexures A-5 to A-7). (iv) Vide communication dated 3.1.2015, respondent No.2 while expressing its inability to regularize the services of the petitioner, requested respondent No.1 i.e. Resident Commissioner, Pangi at Killar, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh to regularizes the services of the petitioner in its own establishment or in other departments under its control (Annexures A-5 to A-7). Vide aforesaid communications respondent No.2 reminded/ apprised respondent No.1 that since petitioner came to be appointed by the Selection Committee constituted by respondent No.1 coupled with the fact that his salary was being paid from the funds of Tribal Development Department, it is not in a position to take steps for regularization of the services of the petitioner, who otherwise has been regularly rendering his services in the capacity of Chowkidar on daily wage basis at Sach project. 3. Besides above, Project officer, Himurja, Pangi vide communication dated 14.11.2017 informed the Resident Commissioner, Pangi at Killar (respondent No.1) that as per record maintained in his office, present petitioner is working at MHEP Sach Pangi on muster roll basis since February, 2004 and his wages are being paid by his office from the budget received from Directorate (Himurja), Himachal Pradesh, Shimla from time to time. Since the case of the petitioner never came to be considered for grant of work charge status as well as for regularization despite his having completed requisite period, he was compelled to approach court of law in the instant proceedings, praying therein reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, this Court finds that there is no dispute inter se parties that since February, 2004 petitioner has been regularly rendering his services on daily wage basis at Micro Hydel Project Sach in Pangi Chamba District and till date no steps, if any, have been taken by the respondents for regularization of his services despite there being policies framed by the Government for regularization of services of daily wage workers after completion of eight years regular service. 5. 5. It is quite apparent from the material available on record that though initial appointment of the petitioner as Chowkidar on daily wage basis in the month of February, 2004 was made by selection committee constituted by the Resident Commissioner, Pangi at Killar, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, respondent No.1 but since his initial appointment he has been continuously rendering his services in the Department of Himurja, respondent No.2. Needless to say, all the administrative action including appointments in tribal areas are usually made/done by the Resident Commissioner of the area and as such, respondent No.2, in whose direct control petitioner has been regularly working for the last more than 16 years, cannot be allowed to defeat the claim of the petitioner on the ground that since he was appointed by respondent No.1, his case is required to be considered by respondent No.1 for regularization. As per own reply filed by respondent No.2, petitioner had been regularly working in their department since the year, 2004 and during this period he has also completed 240 days in each calendar year. Though, respondent No.2 has made an attempt to make out a case that salary of the petitioner is/was being paid out of tribal funds but such plea of respondent No.2 deserves outright rejection being contrary to communication dated 14.11.2017( Annexure R-1) annexed with the reply filed by respondent No.1, sent by Project Officer (Himurja) Pangi at Killar, District Chamba, H.P., which is reproduced herein below:- “To The Resident Commissioner, Pangi at Killar. Dated: 14.11.2017 Subject: Regarding payment of wages in respect of Shri Gurbachan Singh, Daily wager at MHEP Sach pangi. Sir, As per your office telephonic direction on the subject cited above, it is submitted that as per record maintained in this office Shri Gurbachan Singh, daily wager is working at MHEP Sach Pangi on muster roll basis since February, 2004. The payment of wages is being made to him by this office on the receipt of budget from Directorate (Himurja) HP Shimla from time to time. Yours faithfully Project Officer(Himurja) Pangi at Killar, District Chamba, H.P.” 6. Perusal of aforesaid communication clearly reveals that respondent No.2 besides maintaining the record of the services rendered by the petitioner has been also paying his salary on the receipt of budget from Directorate (Himurja), HP Shimla from time to time. Yours faithfully Project Officer(Himurja) Pangi at Killar, District Chamba, H.P.” 6. Perusal of aforesaid communication clearly reveals that respondent No.2 besides maintaining the record of the services rendered by the petitioner has been also paying his salary on the receipt of budget from Directorate (Himurja), HP Shimla from time to time. Otherwise also, reply filed by respondent No.2, if perused in its entirety nowhere suggests that it has specifically denied the claim of the petitioner rather attempt has been made to shift the liability by stating that on account of financial crunch and nonavailability of post, services of the petitioner cannot be regularized. However, since it stands duly established on record that petitioner from the date of his initial engagement has been continuously rendering service with the HIMURJA department without there being any break, respondent No.2 being his employer is under obligation to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization from the date when he has completed eight years regular service. 7. It is not in dispute that respondent-State with a view to mitigate the hardships usually faced by daily wage worker and to remove the unfair labour practices has issued policies for regularization of daily wage employee from time to time. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 28th July, 2010 in case titled Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. and others alongwith other connected matters, passed in CWP No.2735 of 2010 having taken note of policies of Government for regularization, has held as under:- 2. The only reference to be made for analyzing the grievance of the petitioners is two orders of the Government. One order is dated 3.4.2000 and other is dated 6.5.2000. Order dated 3.4.2000, reads as follows: “In partial modification of this Department letter of even number dated 8th July, 1999 on the above subject, I am directed to say that the Government has now decided that the Daily Waged/Contingent Paid workers in all the Departments including Public Works and Irrigation and Public Health Departments (other than work-charged categories) /Boards/Corporations/Universities, etc. who have completed 8 years of continuous service (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year) as on 31-03-2000 will be eligible for regularization. who have completed 8 years of continuous service (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year) as on 31-03-2000 will be eligible for regularization. It has further been decided that completion of required years of service makes such daily wager/contingent paid worker eligible for consideration to be regularized and regularization in all cases will be from prospective effect i.e. from the date the order of regularization is issued after completion of codal formalities. 2. In view of the above decision and in order to avoid any litigation and also any hardship to daily wagers departments shall do the regularization based on seniority and they will ensure that senior persons are regularized first rather than regularizing junior persons first. 3. Other terms and conditions like fulfillment of essential qualification as prescribed in R&P Rules, etc. etc. as laid down in this department letter of 8th July, 1999, as referred to above, shall continue to be operative. 4. These instructions may kindly be brought to the notice of all concerned for strict compliance. 5. These instructions have been issued with the prior approval of the Finance Department obtained vide their Dy. No. 852 dated 23-03-2000.” 3. Order dated 6.5.2000, to the extent relevant, reads as follows: “2. During the process of regularization of daily wagers, various issues and problems relating to these workers concerning their regularization have been brought to the notice of the Government. The Government in order to avoid such confusion or problems has decided to streamline the existing procedure/instructions in order to bring uniformity of procedure in various Departments of the Government. It has, therefore, been decided that henceforth: (i) Daily Waged/Contingent Paid Workers who have completed required years of continuous service (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year except where specified other wise for the tribal areas) which as per latest instructions issued vide this Department letter of even number dated 3-4-2000 is 8 years as on 31-03-2000 shall be eligible for regularization. However, in Departments/Corporations/Boards, where the system of the work charge categories also exists, eligible daily wagers will be considered first for bringing them on the work charge category instead of regularization. However, in Departments/Corporations/Boards, where the system of the work charge categories also exists, eligible daily wagers will be considered first for bringing them on the work charge category instead of regularization. Such eligible daily waged workers/contingent paid workers will be considered for regularization against vacant posts or by creation of fresh posts and in both these events prior approval of Finance Department will be required as per their letter No. Fin-1-C(7)-1/99 dated 24-12-1999. The terms and conditions for such regularization shall be governed as per Annexure –‘A’.” 4. This scheme was in force till a new scheme introduced on 9th June, 2006. The contention of the petitioners is that on completion of 8 years service, as per the scheme extracted above, they are liable to be granted the work-charged status being on a work charged establishment.” 8. It is quite apparent from aforesaid law laid down by Division Bench of this Court, which has otherwise attained finality that daily wage employee, who has completed eight years of continuous service (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year) shall be eligible for regularization. 9. Subsequent to passing of aforesaid judgment, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2415 of 2012, titled Mathu Ram vs. Municipal Corporation and others, decided on 31.7.2014, while placing reliance upon aforesaid judgments rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Kumar case supra, has held as under:- 5. It cannot be disputed that the policy of regularisation has been extended from time to time. The mere fact that there was a time gap in issuance of the policy of regularisation which prescribed different cut off dates cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of regularisation to the petitioner on his completion of 8 years of service on daily waged basis in terms of Rakesh Kumar (supra). 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to comply with the directions as issued in Rakesh Kumar’s case (supra), however, subject to the final outcome of the SLP titled State vs. Rakesh Kumar, which is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Apex Court. 10. Besides above, petitioner has also prayed for grant of work charge status from the date he has completed eight years service. 10. Besides above, petitioner has also prayed for grant of work charge status from the date he has completed eight years service. Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Kumar’s case (supra) has held that the scheme announced by the Government clearly provides that the department concerned should consider the workmen concerned for bringing them on the work charge category and as such, there is obligation cast on the department to consider the case of the daily wage workmen for conferment of the work charged status, being a work charged establishment, on completion of the requisite number of years in terms of the policy. 11. This Court in Rakesh Kumar (supra) has held as under: “6. The simple question is whether the delay defeats justice? In analyzing the above issue, it has to be borne in mind that the petitioners are only class-IV workers (Beldars). The schemes announced by the Government clearly provided that the department concerned should consider the workmen concerned for bringing them on the workcharged category. So, there is an obligation cast on the department to consider the cases of the daily waged workmen for conferment of the workcharged status, being on a work-charged establishment, on completion of the required number of years in terms of the policy. At the best, the petitioners can only be denied the interest on the eligible benefits and not the benefits as such, which accrued on them as per the policy and under which policy, the department was bound to confer the status, subject to the workmen satisfying the required conditions.” 12. Subsequently, the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 10.5.2018 passed in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, titled State of HP and Ors. v. Ashwani Kumar, has categorically held that work charge establishment is not a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status. Subsequently, the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 10.5.2018 passed in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, titled State of HP and Ors. v. Ashwani Kumar, has categorically held that work charge establishment is not a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status. Besides above, in the aforesaid judgment, Division Bench of this Court has specifically observed that while deciding the issue, it is to be borne in mind that the petitioners are only class-IV workers i.e. Beldars and the schemes announced by the Government, clearly provides that the department concerned should consider the workmen concerned for bringing them on the work charged establishment and as such, there is an obligation cast upon the department to consider the case of daily waged workman for conferment of work charge status, on completion of requisite number of years in terms of the policy. Otherwise also, issue in question stands settled in CWP No. 4489 of 2009, titled Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P. and Ors, decided on 14.12.2009, which has been further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to appeal (C) No. 33570//2010 titled State of HP and Ors. v. Pritam Singh and connected matters. Apart from above, decision rendered by this Court in CWP No. 3301/2016, Narotam Singh v. HPSEBL and Ors is also based upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (1990) 1 SCC 361 , as well as judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 9970 of 2012 titled Laxmi Devi v. State of H.P. and Ors. Leaving everything aside, aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court in Ashwani Kumar’s case (supra) has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 13. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and respondent No.2 is directed to grant work charge status to the petitioner from the date he had completed eight years of continuous service in the department and thereafter regularize his services in terms of the policy framed by the Government alongwith consequential benefits. In the aforesaid terms, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.