ORDER : Petitioner, herein was engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1989 and since then, she has been regularly, without there being any interruption, rendering her services in the Department of Agriculture, State of Himachal Pradesh. Since despite having her completed regular eight years’ service as daily wager in the Department she was not granted work charge status and her services were not regularized in terms of policies framed by the Government for regularization from time to time, she approached this Court by way of CWP No. 3260 of 2011, which was disposed of by this Court on 5.9.2012, with direction to the respondents to consider and decide her case in light of judgment dated 27.7.2009, passed by this Court in CWP No. 1594 of 2008, titled as “Man Singh v. the State of HP and Ors.” 2. Though pursuant to aforesaid order, petitioner herein filed representation to the Department concerned for granting benefit in terms of judgment dated 5.9.2012, passed by this Court in CWP No. 3260 of 2011, but her such prayer was rejected on the ground that she has not submitted any document in support of her claim. Vide order dated 20.12.2012 (Annexure P-2), Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, while rejecting representation of the petitioner observed in the order that petitioner does not know her date of birth and as per regularization policy of the State Government, she does not fulfill the criteria of eight years and as such, cannot claim any parity with the case of Man Singh in CWP No. 1594 of 2008. In the aforesaid order, respondent No.2, recorded that Smt. Phoolmati, who is having nationality of Nepal has not submitted any document as per policy and R&P rules. Besides above, Director, Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh in order observed that R&P Rules for the post of Beldar Class-IV, in the Department of Agriculture, provide that candidate must be a citizen of India and since applicant is neither a citizen of India nor the eligibility certificate has been issued by the competent authority in her favour, she cannot be considered for regularization as her case is not similar to the case of “Man Singh”. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main relief : “(i) That Annexure P-2 may be quashed and the respondents may be ordered to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date from which the services of other similarly situated persons were regularized who were appointed w.e.f. 1.1.1998 on daily wage basis with all the benefits incidental thereof.” 3. Aforesaid claim of the petitioner has been refuted by the respondents by way of filing reply, wherein though they have admitted that the petitioner was engaged as casual laborer at Potato Development Station Kharapathar under the control of Deputy Director of Agriculture, Shimla, but have contended that since she did not complete 240 days in each calendar year till 1998, her prayer for grant of work charge status cannot be considered prior to the year 1998. Details of mandays chart placed on record alongwith reply clearly reveal that till the year, 1998, petitioner though worked in the department w.e.f. 1985, but not completed 240 days in a calendar year, however, after 1998, till her regularization, in the year, 2018, she continuously worked for 240 days in each calendar year. 4. As per statement made by Mr. Narender Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, on the basis of instructions imparted to him by the Director (Agriculture) Himachal Pradesh, vide order dated 5.5.2021, which is taken on record, petitioner stands regularized in the department vide order dated 20.3.2018 and pursuant to the aforesaid order, petitioner joined the department on regular basis on 13.3.2018 and now, she after having attained age of superannuation i.e. 60 years, has retired from service on 31.8.2020. Since there is no dispute inter-se parties that daily wage labourer is entitled to be granted work charge status after completion of eight years regular service from the date of initial appointment, petitioner, who, though had joined in the year, 1985, but rendered service of 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 1999, ought to have been granted work charge status w.e.f. 31.12.2007, when she had completed eight years uninterrupted service w.e.f. 1999 with 240 days in each calendar year. However fact remains that in the case at hand, aforesaid benefit never came to be accorded in favour of the petitioner, rather she, without there being any fault of her, was provided the benefit of regularization after an inordinate delay of 19 years. As per policy framed by State from time to time, services of the daily wage employee are required to be regularized on completion of eight years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year. Since in the case at hand, petitioner had rendered 240 days service in a calendar year as daily wager uninterruptedly w.e.f. 1999 till 2007, she ought to have been granted work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.2007 and her services should have been also regularized w.e.f. that date. 5. Another ground as has been raised by the respondents while rejecting the case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner failed to furnish requisite documents i.e. eligibility certificate, her claim could not be considered for regularization, however, such plea deserves outright rejection because as per judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this court in CWP No. 1594 of 2008, titled Man Singh v. State of HP, it is duty of the department to provide eligibility certificate. Moreover, eligibility certificate is required for regularization not for grant of work charge status, however, in the case at hand, respondent department denied rightful claim of the petitioner for work charge status without there being any plausible reason. Now since respondents have themselves regularized service of the petitioner w.e.f. 2018, meaning thereby, petitioner must have handed over the eligibility certificate to the department and if it is so, she is entitled to such benefit w.e.f. the date when she had completed eight years regular service as daily wager with 240 days in each calendar year from the date of her initial appointment. Mere submission of eligibility certificate in the year, 2018 by the petitioner cannot be a ground to deny the benefit which had actually accrued to her in the year, 2007. Since respondent-department after being satisfied that the petitioner is eligible to be regularized, has already granted her regularization in the year, 2018, non-furnishing of eligibility certificate, if any, in the year, 2007 cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the petitioner to claim regularization w.e.f. 2007, when she had completed eight years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year. Leaving everything aside, there is/was no requirement, if any, for the petitioner to submit eligibility certificate as far as grant of work charge status is concerned, to which, she had definitely become entitled in the year, 2007. 6. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, present petition is allowed and respondents are directed to grant work charge status to the petitioner from the date she had completed eight years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year from the date of her initial appointment. Respondents shall also grant regularization to the petitioner from the date when she had completed eight years subject to availability of the vacancy, however petitioner shall be entitled to the consequential benefits from the date of filing of the petition in the year 2011 i.e. CWP No. 3260 of 2011. In the aforesaid terms, present petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of.