ORDER : Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 22.3.2017 (Annexure A-5) passed by the Principal Secretary (Horticulture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby representation having been filed by the petitioner, praying therein to grant him work charge status and regularize his services from the date he completed eight years regular service from the date of his initial appointment in the year, 1999, came to be rejected, petitioner approached the HP State Administrative Tribunal by way of original application, which after its abolishment, now stands transferred to this Court for adjudication, praying therein for following main reliefs : “i) That the impugned order dated 22.03.2017, passed by respondent No.1 may very kindly be quashed and set-aside. (ii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to regularize the services of the applicant w.e.f. 1.1.2002 i.e. after completion of 8 years service with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the petitioner herein was initially appointed as daily waged Mechanical Fitter in the year, 1991 with respondent No.2. However, subsequently, respondent No.2–corporation became financially unviable and as such, entire staff of the corporation was absorbed in the different departments and boards. Vide order dated 29.5.2008, petitioner herein was absorbed in the Excise and Taxation department and was regularized against the vacant post of Chowkidar in the pay scale of Rs. 2520-4140/- with initial start of Rs. 2620/- with immediate effect. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with regularization of the petitioner against the post of Chowkidar w.e.f. 29.5.2008, petitioner filed CWP No. 1899 of 2009, before this court, which came to be disposed of, vide judgment dated 18.5.2010 (A-3), wherein Division Bench of this court directed the respondent-State to consider the case of the petitioner in light of judgment rendered in CWP-T No. 4161 of 2008, titled Jagdish Chand and Ors v. State of HP and Anr, and further ordered that if the petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the case of Jagdish Chand (supra), he may be also given the same relief. 4. 4. Respondent State filed Review Petition No. 76 of 2011, against the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench, which came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 19.10.2011 (Annexure A-4), wherein the Division Bench of this Court clarified that case of the petitioner shall be examined in the light of the decision dated 28.7.2010 made by this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar v. State of H.P. and Ors. Pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by the Division Bench of this court in review petition having been filed by the respondent, petitioner filed representation, praying therein for grant of work charge status from the date of his initial appointment as well as regularization but competent authority vide order dated 22.3.2017 (A-5) rejected the aforesaid prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that since there is no work charge establishment in respondent No.2 and service of the petitioner has been regularized during the year, 2008, prayer made on his behalf cannot be accepted. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that precise grouse of the petitioner is that respondent ought to have regularized his services after his having rendered eight years service from the date of his initial appointment in respondent No. 2-departemnt in the year, 1991. 6. Respondent No.2 in its reply though has fairly acknowledged the factum with regard to employment of the petitioner with the corporation-department but has stated that the petitioner was initially engaged in the year, 1993 not in the year, 1991. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, argued that since services of the petitioner already stand regularized vide order dated 29.5.2008, prayer having been made by the petitioner for gnat of work charge status is otherwise not maintainable at this stage. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, argued that since services of the petitioner already stand regularized vide order dated 29.5.2008, prayer having been made by the petitioner for gnat of work charge status is otherwise not maintainable at this stage. He further argued that the petitioner was appointed on regular basis in the year, 2008 and as such, there was, otherwise, no occasion for the department to take into consideration the service rendered by him prior to his fresh appointment in the Department of Excise and Taxation, however, this court is not in agreement with the aforesaid submission made by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the reason that there is no dispute inter-se parties that prior to absorption of the petitioner in the Excise and Taxation Department, he was rendering his services as Mechanical Fitter with respondent No.2 w.e.f. 1991 or 1993. It is not the case of the respondent that petitioner was given fresh appointment as Chowkidar on regular basis in the Excise and Taxation Department. Office order dated 29.5.2008 (A-6) itself suggests that firstly, petitioner was absorbed in the Excise and Taxation Department, Himachal Pradesh, being daily wager and thereafter, his services were regularized against the vacant post of Chowkidar in the pay scale of Rs. 2520-4140/- with immediate effect. It is quite apparent from the bare reading of the aforesaid order dated 29.5.2008, that the petitioner was not freshly recruited in the Excise and Taxation Department in the year, 2008, but he was firstly absorbed in the Excise and Taxation Department and thereafter his services were regularized against the post of Chowkidar. If it is so, service rendered by the petitioner prior to his being absorbed in the Excise and Taxation Department, ought to have been taken into consideration by the department while regularizing the services of the petitioner against the post of Chowkidar. 7. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of the communication dated 19.9.2009 (A-7), whereby instructions were issued to various departments including the department of Excise and Taxation that surplus daily wagers of respondent No.2 may be absorbed by the respondent department and thereafter regularize the service of eligible daily wagers as per the government policy against the vacant post in the departments retaining therein daily wage seniority of respondent No.2. Once vide aforesaid communication, Govt. Once vide aforesaid communication, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh itself took a decision to absorb the surplus daily wagers of respondent No.2 in the various departments and thereafter, to regularize their services as per the policy retaining their daily wage seniority, there is no justification, if any, for the Excise and Taxation Department for not counting service rendered prior to regularization of the service while counting minimum period required for regularization. However, this court is in agreement with Mr. Vaidya learned Senior Additional Advocate General that since services of the petitioner already stand regularized, there is no occasion at this stage, to grant work charge status to the petitioner but petitioner deserves to be regularized from the date he had completed 8 or 10 years from the date of his initial appointment with respondent No.2 i.e. 1991 or 1993. 8. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, impugned order dated 22.3.2017, is quashed and set-aside and respondent No.1 is directed to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment as daily wagers in the respondent No.2- corporation i.e. 1991 or 1993, alongwith consequential benefits. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.