JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Petitioner Nandini Thakur alias Nandi Thakur has approached this Court for quashing impugned Office Order dated 25.10.2012 (Annexure P-6), passed by Superintending Engineer, IPH Circle, Kullu (HP) (respondent No.2), whereby benefit of regularization, extended to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2002, as per Policy of State, on completion of eight years continuous service with 240 days in each Calendar Year, has been withdrawn and her date of regularization as Complaint Attendant has been modified as 30.12.2006, i.e. from the date of appointment/ regularization of similarly situate persons junior to her. 2. For the purpose of adjudication of present case, Policy formulated by the respondents-State and approved by the Supreme Court of India in Mool Raj Upadhyaya v. State of H.P. & others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316 further explained in Gauri Dutt & others v. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366, and Regularization Policy framed and circulated by the respondents-State in the year 2000, shall be relevant. 3. Policy approved by the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case reads as under: “4. 3. Policy approved by the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case reads as under: “4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the said scheme by substituting paragraphs 1 to 4 of the same by the following paragraphs: "(1) Daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12-1993, shall be appointed as work-charged employees with effect from 1-1-1994 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 31- 12-1993, shall be appointed as work-charged employees with effect from 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 of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12-1993, 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 regularised in a phased manner on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability including physical fitness. On regularisation they shall be put in the minimum of the time-scale payable to the corresponding lowest grade applicable to the government and would be entitled to all other benefits available to regular government servants of the corresponding grade." 4. Right of regularization/work-charge status of a Daily-Wage Worker, where the worker/employee has rendered service, on daily-wage basis, on different posts in lower and higher grades, has been explained in Gauri Dutt’s case, as under: “18. The last question raises some interesting points. There have been instances where some employee has worked as beldar for some time and thereafter he has been engaged in a higher scale as mate or supervisor etc. The last question raises some interesting points. There have been instances where some employee has worked as beldar for some time and thereafter he has been engaged in a higher scale as mate or supervisor etc. The Tribunal in most of these cases has directed that the employee should be granted work charge status in the higher post on completion of 10 years of service after combining the service rendered in the lower scale and the higher scale. The State is aggrieved by these directions. According to the learned Advocate General the State has offered work charge status to these employees on completion of 10 years of combined service in the lower of the two scales and the State cannot be directed to grant work charge status in the higher scale. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the employees that since the employees are already working in the higher scale, it would not be fair and equitable to grant them work charge status in the lower scale. 19. We have considered the arguments from all angles. We are of the view that the employee cannot be given the benefit of combining service rendered in both the scales and be granted work charge status in the higher scale. We do, however, feel that at times it may be inequitable to grant the employee work charge status in the lower scale without giving him an option in this regard. We are giving two examples to illustrate two extreme positions. In example (i) we will deal an employee (A) who joined service on 1.1.1990. He works in the lower scale of beldar from 1.1.1991 to 31.12.1999. He is thereafter posted as Supervisor in the higher scale. Should he be granted work charge status as beldar or as Supervisor w.e.f. 1.1.2001? The other example is converse. Supposing employee (B) has worked as beldar w.e.f. 1.1.1991 to 31.12.1991 and from 1.1.1992 he has worked as Supervisor. From which date should we grant him work charge status and in what scale? It is obvious that in the first case the employee would not mind being granted work charge status even in the lower scale after 10 years w.e.f. 1.1.2000 since grant of work charge status would mean that he would get regular scale of pay. But should the employee be granted work charge status in the higher scale? It is obvious that in the first case the employee would not mind being granted work charge status even in the lower scale after 10 years w.e.f. 1.1.2000 since grant of work charge status would mean that he would get regular scale of pay. But should the employee be granted work charge status in the higher scale? We cannot agree with this preposition. 20. After considering all the pros and cons and keeping in view the fact that various anomalous situations may arise we are of the considered view that when an employee completes 10 years of continuous service combined in two scales, an option should be given to the employee to either accept work charge status in the lower scale or he may continue to work on daily rated basis in the higher scale and claim work charge status in the higher scale on completion of 10 years of continuous service in the said scale. In the examples given above, employee (A) may prefer to accept work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.2001 even in the lower scale of beldar because otherwise he may have to wait for 9 years before he is granted work charge status. On the other hand, employee (B) in the second example may prefer to delay the grant of work charge status by one year so that he can get work charge status in the higher scale. We feel that in each case the choice should be left to the employee. However, if the employee on being given a chance to exercise his option does not convey his option within 30 days, he shall be granted work charge status in the lower scale by combining the service rendered in both the scales. This answers the fourth question.” 5. Relevant operative portion of orders dated 3.4.2000 and 6.5.2000, issued by Government of Himachal Pradesh, notifying and circulating terms for regularization of daily-wage workers in the year 2000, on completion of eight years continuous service, are as under : Order dated 3.4.2000 : “………………. 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 Departments including Public Works and Irrigation and Public Health Department (other than work-charged categories)/Boards/Corporations/Universities, etc. 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 Departments including Public Works and Irrigation and Public Health Department (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. 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 dated 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.” Order dated 6.5.2000: “…………….. 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 otherwise 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. 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’.” 6. A Division Bench of this High Court in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar v. State of H.P. & others, decided on 28.7.2010, has held that till the new scheme, if introduced, comes into being, the old scheme shall be in force, and employees, till introduction of new scheme, shall be entitled for benefits of previous scheme. In other words, on introduction of new scheme, employees shall be entitled for benefits of new scheme, particularly when applicability of subsequent scheme is more beneficial to the employees than the old scheme. The employees, who are governed by old scheme, but are also governed under new scheme devolving benefits better than earlier scheme, are definitely entitled for benefits of the latest scheme. 7. An employee, eligible for getting benefit under two Policies, shall be entitled for benefit of the Policy which is more beneficial to him/her. On notification/circulation/ adoption of new Policy, an employee is to be governed by new Policy. Undoubtedly, benefits extended to an employee by the judgment passed by the Court, in present case by the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case, cannot be taken away by any decision/policy of the Government, but, at the same time, an employee cannot be excluded from extension of benefits of subsequent policy/decision of the Government which is more beneficial than the benefits available to the employee for judgment of the Court. An employee cannot be relegated to disadvantageous position under the garb of old policy or judgment of the Court by debarring him from benefits of more beneficial policy framed by the State Government subsequently. 8. One example, may be elaborating the aforesaid discussion more clearly. Benefits of Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case are available to an employee appointed before 1.1.1994 on daily-wage basis, who has completed service of minimum 240 days in a calendar year. 8. One example, may be elaborating the aforesaid discussion more clearly. Benefits of Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case are available to an employee appointed before 1.1.1994 on daily-wage basis, who has completed service of minimum 240 days in a calendar year. An employee appointed on or after 1.1.1994 shall be governed by subsequent policy. Say an employee is appointed on daily-wage basis on 1.1.1993 and another on 1.1.1994. First employee completes ten years of service with 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.12.2003 and he, as per Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s policy, will be, thus, entitled for work-charged status/regularization on completion of ten years service, w.e.f. 1.1.2004. The other employee appointed on 1.1.1994 shall not be entitled for benefit of Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case but on introduction/framing of subsequent policy in the year 2000, he would be entitled under subsequent Policy for work-charge status/regularization on completion of eight years, with continuous service of minimum 240 days in each calendar year, on 1.1.2002. In case, benefit of subsequent policy is not extended to the employees entitled for benefit of Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case policy, then it shall cause miscarriage of justice, as senior daily-wage employees would be entitled for work-charge status or regularization at a later point of time than his juniors. Therefore, irrespective of the fact that employee is governed under Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case, such employee shall be entitled for benefits of subsequent policy, if it is not taking away the benefits of earlier policy and is more beneficial to the concerned employee. 9. It is an admitted fact that petitioner was appointed as Complaint Attendant (Class-III Post), on daily-wage basis, in April 1992 and, after serving as such for 92 days, she was posted as Enquiry Attendant (Class-IV Post), w.e.f. July 1992. Petitioner was engaged as Enquiry Attendant till November 1993. Thereafter, she was again appointed as Complaint Attendant w.e.f. December 1993. Petitioner is a Daily-Wager appointed before 1.1.1994, who had completed 240 days in a calendar year as a Daily-Wager prior to 31.12.1993. Thus, she was entitled for benefit of Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case for conferment of work-charge status or regularization, on completion of ten years of continuous service, with 240 days in each calendar year, from the date of her initial appointment. 10. Thus, she was entitled for benefit of Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case for conferment of work-charge status or regularization, on completion of ten years of continuous service, with 240 days in each calendar year, from the date of her initial appointment. 10. Undisputedly, petitioner has been serving since April 1992 continuously, with 240 days in each calendar year, as evident from Mandays Chart filed with reply of respondents as Annexure R-1. 11. Petitioner had served as a Daily-wager against the posts of two categories, i.e. Complaint Attendant (Class-III Post) and Enquiry Attendant (Class-IV Post). From initial date of appointment, i.e. April 1992, she would have been entitled for conferment of work-charge status or regularization, on completion of ten years service in April 2002, in the lower grade after counting combined service of both grades. 12. For claim to consider her against higher grade, by extending benefit of Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case, she would have completed ten years continuous service in higher grade with 240 days in each calendar year on 1.12.2003 and in case of counting of 92 days of her service as Complaint Attendant in year 1992, ten years would have been completed on 1.9.2003. 13. Before completion of service of petitioner for a period of ten years on daily-wage basis, entitling her for benefits of Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case, State of Himachal Pradesh had issued Regularization Policy in the year 2000, terms whereof have been circulated by the Government in two Orders dated 3.4.2000 and 6.5.2000, quoted supra. 14. As per 2000 Policy, petitioner acquired right of conferment of work-charge status or regularization on completion of eight years service, as explained and held in Rakesh Kumar’s case supra. Applying principle of Gauri Dutt’s case, she would be entitled for regularization in lower grade, on completion of eight years daily-wage service with 240 days in each calendar year, in April 2000, and for claim of her right against the post of higher scale/grade, she would have been entitled for regularization/conferment of work-charge status in September/December, 2001. 15. Petitioner has completed eight years service in higher grade in September/December 2001. 15. Petitioner has completed eight years service in higher grade in September/December 2001. Therefore, regularization of the petitioner vide Order dated 10.1.2003 (Annexure P-2), w.e.f. date of actual joining of the post, was rightly corrected vide Order dated 25.3.2008 (Annexure P-3) w.e.f. 1.1.2002, as prior to that date petitioner had completed eight years continuous service in the higher grade with 240 days in each calendar year and was entitled for benefit of Regularization Policy of the State framed/notified in the year 2000. 16. Date of initial appointment of the petitioner against higher post is April 1992. Thereafter, she served on the same post as well as on the post of lower grade, but in every year she had completed 240 days without any break. Therefore, for the purpose of counting of years of service for extension of benefit of the Scheme, initial date of appointment of April 1992 is to be taken into consideration. However, for extension of benefit of service against the higher post, period for which petitioner has served against the post of lower grade is to be excluded. In other terms, period of service against higher grade, at any point of time, during entire continuous service, without break, is to be taken for consideration for deciding the claim of petitioner for regularization/conferment of work-charge status against the post of higher grade. 17. Though petitioner would have been entitled for her regularization on completion of eight years service in September 2001, after taking into account her 92 days service as Complaint Attendant in the year 1992 with subsequent period of her service on the same post but it has neither been claimed nor argued by and on behalf of petitioner and otherwise also there is not much difference between September 2001 and January 2002. 18. In view of above discussion, I find that not only the impugned Office Order dated 25.10.2012 (Annexure P-6) but the reasons assigned by the respondents-State, in the reply, for justifying the said order, are also misconceived and not tenable. Therefore, order dated 25.10.2012 (Annexure P-6) is quashed and Office Order dated 25.3.2008 read with Order dated 10.1.2003 is maintained. Petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits accordingly. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of, in the aforesaid terms, so also pending application, if any.