ORDER : Since in all these petitions, common question of facts and law are involved and same and similar relief has been claimed, all the matters are taken up together for hearing and disposal vide common order. 2. For the sake of clarity and brevity, facts of CWPOA No. 5986 of 2019, Shanti Devi v. HP Urban Development Authority are being noticed herein below. 3. Petitioner Shanti Devi was engaged as daily wage Beldar in the respondent-department in the year, 1990 and since then, she was continuously working with the respondent-department with minimum 240 days in each calendar year. Since case of the petitioner was not considered by the department for grant of work charge status after completion of ten years in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhaya v. State of HP and Ors. 1994 Supl. (2) SCC 316, she filed an Original Application before the erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal, which subsequently on account of its abolition, came to be transferred to this Court for adjudication and was re-registered as CWP-T No. 15618/2008. 4. Learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the aforesaid petition, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of law laid down by this Court in CWP-T No. 10220 of 2008, titled Phool Maya v. State of HP as well as CWP No. 1594 of 2008, titled Man Singh v. State of H.P. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, respondents preferred LPA No. 216 of 2011, which came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 22.3.2011, directing the respondents to consider case of the petitioner in light of the decision rendered by this Court in CWP No. 1594 of 2008, Man Singh v. State of HP (a/w connected matters), within three months from the date of production of copy of the judgment, however, while passing the aforesaid order, Division Bench of this Court also recorded the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case department regularizes the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2007, the petitioner will not claim any benefit prior to 1.1.2007. Since despite there being aforesaid direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court, case of the petitioner was not considered in light of Man Singh’s case supra, she approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main relief:- “i) That the respondent may kindly be directed to grant the work charge status/regularization to the applicant w.e.f. 01.01.2000 as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Man Singh v/s State of H.P., with all consequential benefits. 6. Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed their reply, wherein facts as have been noticed herein above, have not been disputed. Though it has been claimed that in terms of judgment dated 22.3.2011 passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.216 of 2010, case of the petitioner has been considered in light of the judgment passed by this Court in Man Singh’s case supra and she has been given appointment as work charge beldar vide office order dated 18.8.2010 w.e.f. 16.7.2007 with all consequential benefits as per the policy of the government prevalent at that relevant time, but no order with regard to conferment of work charge status, if any, upon the petitioner has been placed on record. 7. Mr. Devender K. Thakur, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) states that till date, neither petitioner(s) has been given work charge status after having completed her 8 years service nor their services have been regularized in terms of policy of regularization framed by the government from time to time. 8. Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents while reiterating that judgment dated 22.3.2011, passed in LPA No. 216 of 2011, titled Chief Executive Officer-cum Secretary, HP Housing and UDA v. Shanti Devi and Ors, has been duly complied with, contended that work charge status stands conferred upon the petitioner w.e.f. 16.7.2007, but he was unable to produce on record copy, if any, issued by the department concerned in the aforesaid record. 9. While placing on record communications dated 17.2.2016 and 6.3.2018 issued under the signatures of Executive Director HIMUDA Shimla and under Secretary (Housing) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Mr. 9. While placing on record communications dated 17.2.2016 and 6.3.2018 issued under the signatures of Executive Director HIMUDA Shimla and under Secretary (Housing) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Chandel, contended that though case for conferment of work charge status of the petitioner as well as regularization in terms of judgment passed in Man Singh’s case was recommended to the Government, but same was refused on the pretext that all the works in HIMUDA, are being done by the contractor and as such, there is no justification for having the Additional Class-IV posts and cadre of work charged employees be declared as dying cadre, without converting them into regular establishment. Aforesaid communication dated 17.2.2016 reveals that matter with regard to conversion of remaining 38 different work charged employees into the regular establishment were taken up with the government. It also appears from the aforesaid communication that initially in HIMUDA, there were 301 work charge incumbents, who were borne on the analogy of HPPWD in respect of work charged incumbents. On the analogy of HPPWD, cases with regard to conversion of work charged staff of HIMUDA into regular establishment were taken up with the Government of Himachal Pradesh and accordingly, approval was conveyed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh for conversion of 208 posts of various categories of work charged incumbents into regular employees vide office order dated 10.3.2010. Only 38 remaining incumbents appointed/regularized on work charged basis in HIMUDA continued to work on work charge basis and as such, vide aforesaid communication, request was made for conversion of 38 work charge incumbents into regular work establishment. It appears that since aforesaid 38 employees were Nepali nationals, their cases were not considered on account of pendency of the issue with regard to entitlement of Nepali Nationals to have employment under Government of India, in this court and thereafter, before the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, now it is not in dispute that issue as to whether person, who is not Indian citizen is entitled to claim employment stands duly adjudicated in case titled Dal Bahadur v. State of HP alongwith connected matters, by the Principal Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 9.11.2011 in CWP No. 5799 of 2014, which has been further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP having been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh. Division Bench of this court vide aforesaid judgment dated 9.11.2011, specifically took note of the judgment rendered by this Court in Man Singh’s case in CWP No. 1594 of 2008, decided on 27.7.2009, wherein it specifically took note of the resolution passed by the Central Government on 1.3.1977, office memorandum dated 10.5.1978 and letter dated 16.7.2009, addressed by the Secretary (Agriculture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to the Director of Agriculture, whereby it was laid down that as far as Nepalese citizens are concerned, only eligibility certificates are required. As per aforesaid direction, if Nepali citizens are able to furnish eligibility certificates they are also required to be granted benefit in terms of policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time with regard to conferment of the work charge status and thereafter regularization. Since aforesaid judgment rendered by the Principal Division Bench of this Court has already attained finality, petitioner(s) being similarly situate is/are also entitled for similar benefits in terms of judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in Man Singh’s case supra. 10. Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, learned counsel while inviting attention of this court to order dated 22.3.2011, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 216 of 2011 contended that petitioners herein cannot claim any benefit prior to 1.1.2007 on account of statement given by their counsel at the time of passing of judgment dated 22.3.2011. He also argued that cadre of work charge employee has been declared as dying cadre and as such, relief with regard to claim of the petitioner(s) for conferment of work charge status cannot be granted, but aforesaid pleas made by Mr. Chandel, deserves outright rejection being devoid of any merits. Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 10.5.2018, in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, titled State of HP and Ors v. Ashwani Kumar, has already held that cessation of work charge status is to do nothing with the conferment of work charge status and thereafter regularization. It is not in dispute that aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Ashwani Kumar has attained finality because SLP having been field by the respondent-State against the aforesaid judgment has been dismissed. Relevant paras whereof read as under: 6. It is not in dispute that aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Ashwani Kumar has attained finality because SLP having been field by the respondent-State against the aforesaid judgment has been dismissed. Relevant paras whereof read as under: 6. Having carefully perused material available on record, especially judgment rendered by this Court in Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P. and Ors, as referred herein above, which has been further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to appeal (C) No. 33570//2010 titled State of HP and Ors. v. Pritam Singh and connected matters, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that there is no error in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that work charge establishment is not a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status. The Division Bench of this Court while rendering its decision in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar decided on 28.7.2010, has held that regularization has no concern with the conferment of work charge status after lapse of time, rather Court in aforesaid judgment has categorically observed that while deciding the issue, it is to be borne in mind that the petitioners are only class-IV worker (Beldars) and the schemes announced by the Government, clearly provides that the department concerned should consider the workmen concerned for bringing them on the work charged category and as such, there is an obligation cast upon the department to consider the case of daily waged workman for conferment of daily work charge status, being on a work charged establishment on completion of required number of years in terms of the policy. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been specifically held that benefits which accrued on workers as per policy are required to be conferred by the department. 7. Subsequent to aforesaid decision, this Court while disposing of CWP No. 2398 of 2016 titled HPSEB and Anr. V. Nanak Chand and Ors, (alongwith connected matters), upheld the decision rendered by the learned Tribunal, whereby the respondent-electricity board was directed to consider the case of the applicant for conferment of work charge status on completion of ten years of service with all benefits incidental thereto. V. Nanak Chand and Ors, (alongwith connected matters), upheld the decision rendered by the learned Tribunal, whereby the respondent-electricity board was directed to consider the case of the applicant for conferment of work charge status on completion of ten years of service with all benefits incidental thereto. It may be noticed that decision rendered by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 3207 of 2015 in Narotam Singh v. HPSEB Ltd. and Ors, dated 14.12.2015, which subsequently came to be assailed in CWP No. 3301/2016, was squarely based upon decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (1990) 1 SCC 361 , as well as judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 9970 of 2012 titled Laxmi Devi v. State of H.P. and ors., decided on 26.11.2012. 8.Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel representing the respondent has also brought factum to our notice with regard to the implementation of similar directions as issued in the present case by the various departments pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Tribunal as well as this Court in the case of other similarly situate persons. Mr. Gupta also invited attention of this Court to the judgments having been passed by this Court in CWP No.2735 of 2010, dated 28.7.2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar v. State of H.P. and others; 13.5.2013, passed in CWP No.1906 of 2013-A, titled as Hira Singh v. HPSEB Ltd. & anr.; 14.8.2014, passed in CWP No.2551 of 2014, titled as H.P. State Electricity Board and another v. Bhag Singh and others; 10.9.2014, passed in CWP No.179 of 2014, titled as Beg Dass and others v. HPSEB Ltd and anr.; and 20.11.2014, passed in LPA No.621 of 2011, titled as H.P. State Electricity Board Limited and others v. Jagmohan Singh, perusal whereof clearly suggests that benefit as prayed for in the instant petition stands duly accorded to other similarly situate persons. 9. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law relied upon, we see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal and as such, present petition fails and dismissed accordingly.” 11. 9. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law relied upon, we see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal and as such, present petition fails and dismissed accordingly.” 11. Consequently, in view of the above, all these petitions are allowed and respondents are directed to confer work charge status to the petitioners from the due date i.e. from the date petitioners completed eight years service with 240 days in each calendar year and thereafter, their services be regularized in terms of policy framed by the government from time to time. Since learned counsel for the petitioners have already made statement before the Division Bench of this Court at the time of passing of the judgment dated 22.5.2011 that in case petitioner are regularized w.e.f. 1.1.2007, they will not claim any benefit prior to 1.1.2007, petitioners are held entitled to consequential benefits on account of their being conferred work charge status and regularization w.e.f. 1.1.2007. In the aforesaid terms, present petitions are disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.