ORDER : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India having been filed by the petitioners-State (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondents’) lays challenge to the order dated 26.12.2018 passed by erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No.3965/2015, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order, whereby the respondents have been directed to regularize the services of the respondent-Original Applicant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioner’) as Beldar on completion of eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year on and with effect from 01.01.2001 alongwith all consequential benefits. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the petitioner was recruited as Daily Paid Beldar in the Animal Husbandry Department, vide memo dated 22.05.1992, and he was continuously working as such up till 09.06.2006, when vide office order of even date his services as Beldar were regularized. Though, as per policy for ‘Regularization of Daily Waged/Contingent Paid Workers’, issued vide letter dated 03.04.2000, services of the petitioner were required to be regularized from the date he had completed eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.3.2000, but since respondents, despite petitioner’s having completed eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.3.2000, failed to regularize the petitioner on and with effect from 01.01.2001, he was compelled to approach erstwhile Tribunal by O.A. No.3965/2015, praying therein for the following main relief(s):- “(i) That the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the Applicant on and w.e.f. 1.4.2000 with all consequential benefits alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, as per the policy dated 3.4.2000 read with the law laid down in Rakesh Kumar’s case and Som Nath’s case. (ii) That in alternate work charge status on and w.e.f. 22.5.2002 may kindly be granted to the Applicant with interest @ 9% per annum.” 3. Claim of the petitioner as put forth in O.A. No.3965/2015 came to be resisted on behalf of the respondents on the ground that the petitioner was not covered under the policy issued vide letter dated 03.04.2000 because he had not completed eight years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.3.2000. Claim of the petitioner as put forth in O.A. No.3965/2015 came to be resisted on behalf of the respondents on the ground that the petitioner was not covered under the policy issued vide letter dated 03.04.2000 because he had not completed eight years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.3.2000. Respondents claimed before the Tribunal that next policy for ‘Regularization of Daily aged/Contingent Paid Workers’ was issued on 09.06.2006, and as such, petitioner was rightly considered in the subsequent policy dated 09.06.2006 and he cannot claim regularization in the interregnum after 31.03.2000 till 31.03.2004. 4. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, erstwhile Tribunal vide impugned order dated 26.12.2018 allowed the Original Application in terms of judgment dated 31.07.2014 rendered by this Court in CWP No. 2415 of 2012, titled as: Mathu Ram vs. Municipal Corporation Shimla and others, which has been further upheld by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 13.10.2015 passed in LPA No.44 of 2015, titled as: Municipal Corporation Shimla and Others vs. Mathu Ram, wherein it was specifically held that: The mere fact that there was a time gap in issuance of the policy of regularization which prescribed different cut off dates cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of regularization to the petitioner on his completion of 8 years of service on daily waged basis in terms of Rakesh Kumar (supra). 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment passed by erstwhile Tribunal, respondents have approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order passed by the erstwhile Tribunal. 6. Ms.Rita Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, vehemently argued that judgment impugned in the instant petition is not sustainable in law being totally contrary to the facts of the case as well as policy of regularization prevalent at the relevant time. She argued that petitioner was not covered under policy of 03.04.2000 because by that time he had not completed eight years of minimum service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year till 31.03.2000. She further argued that since the petitioner became entitled for regularization in terms of policy issued by the respondents on 09.06.2006, he was rightly regularized w.e.f. 09.06.2006. 7. She further argued that since the petitioner became entitled for regularization in terms of policy issued by the respondents on 09.06.2006, he was rightly regularized w.e.f. 09.06.2006. 7. Shri Onkar Jairath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in LPA No.44/2015, decided on 13.10.2015, titled as Municipal Corporation, Shimla and others vs. Mathu Ram and judgment dated 24.11.2021 passed by the Principal Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.6912 of 2021, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and Another vs. Swaran Rekha, contended that no interference, if any, is called for in the judgment impugned the instant proceedings, which is based on proper appreciation of facts as well as law on point. 8. We find that the judgment passed by the erstwhile Tribunal is based upon judgments passed by this Court in Mathu Ram (supra) and in LPA No.194 of 2015, titled as: State of H.P. and Others vs. Gian Singh. Judgment rendered by this Court in Gian Singh (supra), which upheld the judgment passed by Single Judge in CWP No.7140 of 2012, titled as: Gian Singh vs. State of H.P. stands further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No.22277/2016. 9. Subsequently Division Bench of this Court placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment rendered in Gian Singh’s case (supra) passed detailed judgment in CWP No.6912 of 2021, titled as :State of Himachal Pradesh and Another vs. Swaran Rekha, wherein it has dealt with the similar issue and has held as under:- “9. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment has also relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.194 of 2015, which upheld the Single Bench judgment in CWP No.7140 of 2012, titled Gian Singh Versus State of H.P. and others. In fact, the judgments passed in the aforesaid LPA and writ petition were upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.22277/2016. The learned Single Bench in Gian Singh’s case (supra) held as under: - 7. In fact, the judgments passed in the aforesaid LPA and writ petition were upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.22277/2016. The learned Single Bench in Gian Singh’s case (supra) held as under: - 7. “There is no justification or reasonable explanation offered by the respondents as to why the services of the petitioner were regularized on 1.1.2002 after completion of alleged 10 years continuous service when admittedly the policy issued vide letter dated 26.9.2005 and circulated on 24.10.2005 (Annexure R-1) clearly provided for regularization of services of all the daily wagers, who had completed 8 years or more daily wages continuous service as on 31.3.2000 with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to be regularized w.e.f. 1.1.2000 i.e. the date when he had completed 8 years of continuous service.” 10. The Tribunal also relied upon the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.386 of 2012, titled H.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Versus Shri Rajesh Kumar Kashyap, decided on 7th April, 2014, wherein, it was held that the order/instructions dated 06.05.2000 referred to in Rakesh Kumar’s case are in continuation of the nine instructions previously issued on the subject from 11.07.1995, which has granted similar relief to the concerned employee. The aforesaid judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court was also upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.11507 of 2014. 11. Yet another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court relied upon by the Tribunal was delivered in LPA No.44 of 2015, titled Municipal Corporation Shimla and others Versus Mathu Ram, decided on 13.10.2015, facts of which case are somewhat identical to the present case. In that case, respondent was appointed in November, 1993. He completed service of eight years in 2001. In the present case also, respondent-original applicant was appointed on 16.08.1993 and completed service of eight years on 16.08.2001. The employee concerned in that case was claiming that he was required to be regularized immediately on completion of eight years’ service. The appellant- Corporation, however, resisted the claim. It was held by this Court that practice of the respondent Corporation in not regularizing the service of the workmen even though they have completed eight years of service, amounts to unfair labour practice. The appellant- Corporation, however, resisted the claim. It was held by this Court that practice of the respondent Corporation in not regularizing the service of the workmen even though they have completed eight years of service, amounts to unfair labour practice. It may be noted that this judgment was also subject to challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.1708 of 2016 and was upheld.” 10. Otherwise also, issue sought to be adjudicated in this case is no more res integra in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2735 of 2010, decided on 28.07.2010, titled as: Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others, wherein it has been categorically held that: - “2. The only reference to be made for analyzing the grievance of the petitioners is two orders of the Government. One order is dated 3.4.2000 and other is dated 6.5.2000. Order dated 3.4.2000, reads as follows: “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 the Departments including Public Works and Irrigation and Public Health Departments (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 of 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. 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 of 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.” 3. Order dated 6.5.2000, to the extent relevant, reads as follows: “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 other wise 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’.” 4. This scheme was in force till a new scheme introduced on 9th June, 2006. The contention of the petitioners is that on completion of 8 years service, as per the scheme extracted above, they are liable to be granted the work-charged status being on a work charged establishment.” 11. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by this court in the cases supra, petitioner has been rightly held entitled to the benefit of regularization with effect from 1.1.2001. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by this court in the cases supra, petitioner has been rightly held entitled to the benefit of regularization with effect from 1.1.2001. Since the Scheme notified on 3.4.2000 shall be deemed to be in force till the new Scheme was notified in the year 2006 and as such, absence of any new scheme for regularization from 2000 to 2006 shall have no effect on the right of the petitioner to seek benefit of regularization from the date of completion of eight years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year i.e. 1.1.2001. Learned Tribunal below has rightly allowed the original application filed by the petitioner and directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from 1.1.2001 with all consequential benefits. 12. In view of detailed discussion made supra, we find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. The order passed by learned Tribunal below is upheld. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.