JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The writ petitioner, claims a mandamus being pronounced upon the respondents, for his service(s) being regularized w.e.f. 11.4.1994, instead of 6.9.1997. The order putting the writ petitioner, on a work charge basis, is, borne in Annexure A-1. The averment(s) made in para-5 of the application that the writ petitioner had rendered 13 years of continuous service as a daily paid workman, and, with 240 days’ of continuous service in each of calendar years concerned, under the respondents, remains un-rebutted, by the respondents. 2. The policy governing the regularization of services of daily paid workman, under the respondents, is appended as Annexure A-2. Reading of Annexure A-2, appended therewith, discloses that upon completion of 10 years of continuous service, (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year), any daily paid workman, would be entitled to claim regularization, either against the available vacant post, or, if vacant posts are not available by creation of posts. The afore policy was brought into force, w.e.f. 11.12.1997. In consonance with the afore policy, the hitherto services of the writ petitioner, as a daily paid workman, under the respondents, were, put on a work charge basis, w.e.f. 29.7.1997, by the respondents. It is evident on a reading of the reply, furnished by the respondents to the writ petition, that prior to 29.7.1997, there was no work charge establishment available with them, for the hitherto services of daily paid workmen, under the respondents, hence being put on a work charge basis. The afore reply on affidavit, meted to the writ petition, by the respondents, remained un-rebutted. 3. Consequently, even if, in consonance with the policy of regularization, as became adopted by the respondents, only on 11.12.1997, policy whereof is borne in Annexure A-2, and, was brought into force, only on 11.12.1997, (i) and its postulating that upon completion of 10 years’ of continuous service, by daily paid workman, with 240 days of continuous service, in each apposite calendar year, under the respondents, the daily paid workman, would becoming entitled to regularization, (i) yet its application prior thereto or assigning any retrospective effect thereto, would be misfounded, (ii) nor hence the writ claims can be accorded. 4. 4. In addition, since the policy of regularization, as borne in Annexure A-2, has been formulated in pursuance to directions made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Mool Raj Upadhyay’s case, reported in 1994 Supp(2) SCC, 316, and, when the claim of regularization is contained therein, has been modified through substituting paragraphs 1 to 4, as follows: “(1) Daily wage/Muster Roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have completed 10 years of more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on December 31,1993 shall be appointed as work charged employee w.e.f. January 01, 1994 and shall be put in the time scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the Government. (2) Daily wage/Muster Roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have not completed 10 years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on December 31,1993, shall be appointed as work charged employee w.e.f. the date they complete the said period of 10 years of service and on such appointment they shall be put in the time scale of pay applicable to the lowest grade in the Government. (3) Daily wage/Muster Roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled who have not completed 10 years of service with a minimum 240 days in a calendar year on December 31,1994, shall be paid daily wages at the rates prescribed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time for daily wage employees falling in Class-III and Class-IV till they are appointed as work charged employees in accordance with paragraph-2. (4) Daily wage/Muster Roll workers shall be regularized in a phased manner on the basis of seniority-cum-regularization they shall be put in the minimum of time scale payable to the corresponding lowest grade applicable to the Government and would be entitled to all other benefits available to regular Governments servants of the corresponding grade. The scheme as modified shall be implemented w.e.f. January, 1994 and if any excess amount has been received by the employee on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court the same shall not be required to be refunded by him. The Writ Petition shall stand disposed of in term of the aforesaid directions. Contempt Petition No. 342/91 is dismissed. The Writ Petition shall stand disposed of in term of the aforesaid directions. Contempt Petition No. 342/91 is dismissed. No orders as to costs.” Thereupon, (a) when with the daily paid workman, hence completing 10 years of continuous service, with minimum of 240 days of continuous service, in each of the calendar year concerned, and, on the afore completion, occurring on 31.12.1993, rather merely entitling the daily paid workmen, to be put on a work charge basis, (b) whereas, with the work charge establishment, becoming evidently available with the respondents, only in the year July, 1997, thereupon, the putting of the writ petitioner on a work charge basis, by the respondents, in 1997, cannot be faulted. 5. Moreover, when thereins, the putting of daily paid workmen, on a work charge establishment, is mandated to precede, the, meteing, of, the benefit, of, regularization of service to the writ petitioner, (i) besides when the bestowing of the benefit of regularization, to him, is, to occur, in a phased manner, and, on the basis of seniority-cumsuitability including physical fitness, (ii) thereupon, the respondents, are directed to, in consonance with the paragraphs 1 and 4, of, the scheme, as formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Mool Raj Upadhyay’s case, hence forthwith consider the bestowing of the benefit of regularization in service, to, the writ petitioner. 6. In aftermath, no fault is found by this Court, in putting the writ petitioner on a work charge basis, in the year 1997. However, as aforestated, the respondents, shall, in consonance with paragraph-4 of the scheme formulated in Mool Raj Upadhyay’s case, forthwith consider the bestowing of the benefits of regularization in service, to the writ petitioner. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of. Also, the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.