JUDGMENT : Instant letters patent appeal lays challenge to judgment dated 3.8.2021 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in CWPOA No. 6159 of 2019 titled Akalmani v. State of H.P. and another, whereby learned single Judge, while allowing the petition having been filed by the respondent-herein directed the appellant-State to grant work charge status to the respondent from the date of her completing ten years of work subject to completion of 240 days in each calendar year in terms of policy dated 6.5.2000 and in terms of judgment passed by a Division Bench of this court in Gauri Dutt v. State of HP, CWP No. 778 of 2006, decided on 29.12.2007. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that respondent was appointed on daily wage basis in the appellant Department with effect from 11.4.1990 and thereafter she continued to work uninterruptedly to the entire satisfaction of the appellant Department for more than 30 years with 240 days in each calendar year and as such, became entitled to be granted work charge status in terms of policy framed by the appellant State from time to time. Since despite repeated requests, department failed to do the needful, respondent was compelled to approach erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application, which on abolition of learned Tribunal below came to be transferred to this court and re-registered as CWPOA No. 6159 of 2019, seeking grant of work charge status from the date of completion of ten years service as daily wager with 240 days in each calendar year. 3. Aforesaid prayer made on behalf of respondent came to be denied by appellant on the ground that no work charge cadre is available with the Department. Learned single Judge of this court after having scanned entire record and perused judgment rendered by Division Bench of this court in Gauri Dutt supra allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to confer work charge status upon the respondent from the date she completed ten years service on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calendar year. Since the respondent filed the petition after an inordinate delay i.e. 21.12.2015, learned single Judge restricted the arrears to three years prior to filing of the petition. 4. Having heard Ms. Since the respondent filed the petition after an inordinate delay i.e. 21.12.2015, learned single Judge restricted the arrears to three years prior to filing of the petition. 4. Having heard Ms. Ritta Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge, we do not see any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and no interference is called for. 5. Though, Ms. Ritta Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, while contesting the impugned judgment passed by learned single Judge, vehemently argued that since there was no work charge establishment in the Agriculture Department, there was no occasion if any, for the Department concerned to confer work charge status upon the respondent from the date she completed ten years service on daily wage basis, but it is not in dispute that the respondent before claiming work charge status had completed ten years service as Beldar by working for 240 days in each calendar year. Otherwise also, pleadings adduced on record by appellant nowhere suggests that it was able to dispute that respondent worked continuously for ten years as Beldar with 240 days in each calendar year and as such, she had become entitled for conferment of work charge status from the date she had completed ten years daily wage service in the year 2000. As per scheme dated 6.5.2000, work charge status was to be conferred upon a person having completed ten years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year. 6. Another contention raised by appellant Department that since there was no work charge establishment in the Agriculture department, there was no occasion for the appellant to confer work charge status, has no merit and has been rightly rejected by learned single Judge while passing impugned judgment. 7. Division Bench of this court in Gauri Dutt supra has categorically held that that the scheme, as presented by the State of H.P. to the Apex Court, was made applicable to all the daily rated employees in all the departments in H.P and as such, it is held that scheme is applicable to all daily wage employees working in any department of State of Himachal Pradesh “[1] By this judgment we are disposing of the aforesaid batch of writ petitions since the following common questions of law arise for decision in these petitions. 1. 1. Whether the scheme of putting the workers on work charged basis as approved by the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case is applicable to those daily waged employees who had not completed minimum of 240 days of service in a calendar year as on 31st December, 1993? 2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, what will be the process of regularization of services of those employees who had not completed 240 days of service in a calendar year as on 31st December, 1993 or had joined service after Ist January, 1994? 3. Whether the scheme, as approved by the Apex Court, in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case, is only applicable to the employees of the Irrigation and Public Health Department and Public Works Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh or is applicable to all the daily rated employees working under the Government of H.P.? 4. Where if an employee has rendered service on daily waged basis on 2 separate posts in lower and higher scales, can the employee be given benefit of the service rendered by him in the lower scale and be regularized in the higher scale by combining the two services after 10 years? [17] Under para 4 of the scheme the State was under an obligation to regularize all daily waged/muster roll workers whether they had joined prior to 31.12.1993 or thereafter. The State has framed a scheme in this behalf on 6th May, 2000. In our opinion those employees who are not governed by the direction given in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case as set out by us above, shall be governed by the scheme of 2000. The second question is answered accordingly. [18] The State of H.P. has also raised a plea that the scheme in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case is only applicable to the employees of the IPH and PWD departments of the State of H.P. and is not applicable to other employees. We have already quoted para 6 of the affidavit of Mr. Subramanyam which clearly shows that the scheme, as presented by the State of H.P. to the Apex Court, was to be applicable to all the daily rated employees in all the departments in H.P. In view of the affidavit of Mr. Subramanyam, the State cannot now urge that this scheme is not applicable to other departments. Subramanyam which clearly shows that the scheme, as presented by the State of H.P. to the Apex Court, was to be applicable to all the daily rated employees in all the departments in H.P. In view of the affidavit of Mr. Subramanyam, the State cannot now urge that this scheme is not applicable to other departments. In answer to the third question, it is held that the scheme is applicable to all daily waged employees working in any department of State of H.P.” 8. After passing of judgment in Gauri Dutt supra, Division Bench in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, titled State of HP and Ors. vs. Ashwani Kumar, decided on 10.5.2018 has categorically held that that work charge establishment is not a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status, meaning thereby that the daily wage employee, who has completed requisite period in terms of policy framed by the Government for conferment of work charge status shall be entitled for such benefit, even in those departments, where work charge establishment has ceased to exist. 9. Consequently, in view of above we do not see any illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by learned Single Judge and as such, the same is upheld. Appeal stands dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.