ORDER : 1. The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: (i) Respondents may kindly be directed to rectify/amend/modify Annexure P-3, i.e. office Order No. 1111/2011 dated 19-10-2011 issued from the office of respondents, which is based on the decision of respondent No 1 conveyed vide letter dated 14.7.2011 relating to the work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.1996 instead of regularization w.e.f. 1.1.1994 in view of the averments made in the writ petition in paras supra and his pay may kindly be ordered to be fixed w.e.f. 1.1.1994 instead of 1.1.1996. (ii) In view of relief at (i) above, the petitioner may kindly be held entitled for the grant of pension and pensionary benefits and also the consequential benefits. 2. Petitioner was engaged by the respondents as Class- IV on daily wage basis on 1.1.1984. His services were regularized w.e.f. 12.1.1998 after 12 years of continuous daily wage services. Petitioner assailed his regularization w.e.f. 12.1.1998 by way of CWP No. 5843 of 2010 before this Court on the ground that he was entitled for regularization after 10 years of continuous service as per prevalent regularization policy of the State Government and thus his date of regularization should have been 1.1.1994. CWP No. 5843 of 2010 was decided on 20.9.2010 with following directions: “It is submitted that the matter has been considered the by State Administrative Tribunal and the order of Tribunal was challenged before this Court and this Court has dismissed the same as can be seen from Annexure P-3, judgment in CWP No. 420 of 2006. It is further submitted that said judgment has been accepted and implemented by the State. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is similarly situated person like the petitioner in the said case. There will be a direction to first respondent to look into all the aspects of the mater and take appropriate action in accordance with law and justice without discriminating the petitioner. This will be done within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this order along with the copy of the writ petition.” 3. The direction to respondents thus was to examine the case of petitioner in light of judgment passed in CWP No. 420 of 2006 titled State of H.P. and Others vs. Som Dass. The direction to respondents thus was to examine the case of petitioner in light of judgment passed in CWP No. 420 of 2006 titled State of H.P. and Others vs. Som Dass. The factual ground in the case of Som Dass is that he had made a claim for regularization of his services after completion of 10 years w.e.f. 1979. Such claim was filed by him before the State Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 3625 of 1999. The Tribunal vide order dated 17.5.2005 decided the Original Application No. 3625 of 1999 in the following terms: “Above being the position, the applicant is entitled for regularization of his services as per policy dated July 8, 1999 as he had also completed 8 years of continuous service with a minimum 240 days in a calendar year on December 31,1993 as admitted by the respondents. The respondents are, therefore, directed to regularize his services subject to the availability of post. In case, the post is not available, the same may be created. Needful may be done within five months.” 4. This order of the Tribunal was challenged by the State before this Court in CWP No. 420 of 2006, which was disposed of by learned Division Bench of this Court on 4.8.2006 in the following terms: “The Tribunal in the main judgment dated 17.5.2005 clearly held that based upon the Policy of the petitioners themselves, the respondent was entitled to the regularization of his service, because as on 31.12.1993, he had completed 10 years of continuous service, rendering 240 days in each year of service. Tribunal has also relied upon the earlier judgment of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1856/2001 in the case of Janam Singh vs. Forest Corporation and Others, decided on 9.5.2002, which judgment was upheld by this Court, also affirmed by the Supreme Court Ultimately. The petitioners have not disputed the aforesaid factual aspects involved in the case. No interference is called for. Petition is dismissed.” 5. On the directions of this Court, respondents considered the representation of petitioner and allowed him regularization from 1.1.1996 and fixed the pay accordingly. The petitioners have not disputed the aforesaid factual aspects involved in the case. No interference is called for. Petition is dismissed.” 5. On the directions of this Court, respondents considered the representation of petitioner and allowed him regularization from 1.1.1996 and fixed the pay accordingly. Once there were clear directions from this Court to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner in light of decision in CWP No. 420 of 2006 and also by examining the aspects of the matter and to take appropriate action in accordance with law without discriminating the petitioner, the respondents were not justified by granting the benefit of regularization to petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1996 i.e. after 12 years of daily wage services, whereas the regularization policy prevalent at the time provided for regularization after 10 years. Som Dass whose case was made the basis by petitioner was allowed regularization w.e.f. 1.1.1994 vide memorandum dated 31.7.2009 issued by respondent No. 4. As noticed above, Som Dass was regularized after granting him the benefit of policy dated July 8, 1999 on the premise that he had completed 8 years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year as on 31.12.1993. On the same analogy, petitioner was also entitled to regularization after 10 years of his continuous service as per policy prevalent wherein the requisite period of continuous service was prescribed as 10 years. 6. Respondents thus discriminated petitioner vis-a-vis the case of Som Dass by granting him work charge status only w.e.f. 01.01.1994 instead of regularization from the said date. 7. Once the respondents were under clear mandate to consider the case of petitioner in the context of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 420 of 2006, titled State of H.P. and Others vs. Som Dass, the petitioner was entitled to be granted the benefit of regularization w.e.f. 01.01.1994. 8. In view of above discussion, the petition is allowed and office order dated 19.10.2011 is quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of regularization to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1994 with all consequential benefits within a period of three months from today. 9. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.