JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. Since through Annexure A-2, the writ petitioners claim qua conferment, upon them, of work charge status, under their employer, became rejected, hence both become constrained, to, through theirs instituting there against the instant petition, before this Court, seek its annulment. 2. The respondents in their reply meted to the instant petition, do not contest, the factum of both the writ petitioners satiating the apposite eligibility criteria, for theirs becoming entitled, to, seek conferment, upon them, of, the benefit of regularization in service. However, Mr. Hemant Vaid, learned Additional Advocate General, with much vigour, contends that their notch in the seniority list, as prepared by the respondents, for, the benefit of the espoused plea of regularization, becoming conferred upon them, is, not yet entitling them to seek any valid conferment upon them, of the afore status, as, (i) there are workmen(s) senior to the writ petitioners in the seniority list, (ii) thereupon, he contends that the benefit of conferment of status of regular employment under the respondents cannot be conferred upon the writ petitioners. 3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners, does not contest, the aforemade contention. 4. Be that as it may, the entire lis is centered, upon an interpretation, being meted to an order of 6.5.2000, as finds reference in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P and others, alongwith connected matters, decided on 28.7.2010, order whereof becomes extracted hereinafter:- “2. During the process of regularisation of daily wagers, various issues and problems relating to these workers concerning their regularisation 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 regualrisation. 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 regularisation. 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 regularisation. Such eligible daily waged workers/contingent paid workers will be considered for regualrisation 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 regularisation shall be governed as per Annexure-’A’.” 5. The imperative underlined condition precedent as becomes embodied therein, and, as becomes carried in the afore extracted order, does bring forth, a judicially pronounced expostulation, that, the, employer concerned prior to conferring the benefit of regularization in service, from, hitherto daily waged workman, and who satiate(s) the requisite criteria, (i) in as much, as, his completing 240 days of continuous service, in each, of the apposite preceding thereto 8 calendar years, hence being enjoined to put the workman concerned in a work charge capacity. However the afore necessity of putting a daily rated workman, who satiates the afore eligibility criteria, hence, in a work charge capacity, rather prior to the benefit of regularisation in service, becoming conferred upon him, is, yet subject to the apposite work charge employment or deployment being available in the establishment concerned, of, the employer. 6. Mr. Hemant Vaid, learned Additional Advocate General contends with much vigor, before this Court, that since rather in dis-concurrence, with the afore underlined mandate, as becomes carried in the apposite thereof hereinbefore extracted portion, of, the order made on 6.5.2000, rather the apposite work charge establishment, is unavailable, with the respondents concerned, (a) thereupon, the workmen/petitioners herein become legally incapacitated to claim, dehors theirs not occupying the apposite notch, of, seniority, in, the apposite seniority list maintained by them, for, hence the benefit of regularisation, in service, becoming conferred upon them, also the conferment of work charge status upon them. 7. 7. However, the afore made submission, cannot be accepted by this Court, as, a perusal of a signatured information purveyed to the petitioners by the PIO-cum- DFO, Nachan Forest Division, Gohar, rather displays that the employer had conferred, upon, the workmen, as, detailed therein, the apposite work charge status, Consequently, the afore dis-similar treatment meted by the respondents, to the petitioners rather tantamounts to discrimination becoming meted upon them, and, thereupon breach of mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India becomes aroused. Necessarily, the afore breach has to be undone, and, it is hence undone, through the respondents being directed, to, after the impugned Annexure becoming annulled, put the workmen/petitioners, in a work charge capacity, from the date of theirs completing the apposite period, of qualifying service, as, daily rated workman, in as much as, from the date both of them completing 240 days of continuous service, in each, of the apposite preceding thereto 8 calendar years. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.