ORDER : By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive relief:- “(i) That the orders dated: 09.02.2016 annexure A-2, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondent may kindly be directed to regularise the services of the applicant after 8 year of daily waged services i.e. 1.1.2004 as per the judgment delivered in CWP(T) No. 12217 of 2008, titled as Ashok Kumar Vs. State of H.P.” 2. The case as set-up by petitioner is that he was appointed to the post of driver in Forest Department of Government of Himachal Pradesh in the year 1996, on daily wage basis. His services were regularised w.e.f. 25.09.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was entitled for regularization on completion of 8 years' continuous service on daily wage basis in terms of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others. Having remained unsuccessful in getting his grievance redressed from the respondents, petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 159 of 2011. A Division Bench of this Court vide Order dated 9th March, 2011, disposed of the Civil Writ Petition No. 159 of 2011 in following terms:- “2. The petitioners claim work charge status on completion of eight years of continuous service as daily waged Driver/Chowkidar. According to the petitioners, the issue is covered in their favour by the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, Rakesh Kumar Versus State of H.P. & Others. It is for the respondents to examine the matter. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents concerned to examine the matter in the light of the judgment referred to above and take appropriate action thereon within a period of four months from the date of production of copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and the copy of the judgment referred to above.” 3. In compliance to aforesaid order dated 09.03.2011 passed in CWP No. 159 of 2011, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.2 and the representation of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.2 vide office order dated 9.2.2016, Annexure A-2. Hence, the petitioner is before this court by way of instant petition. 4. In compliance to aforesaid order dated 09.03.2011 passed in CWP No. 159 of 2011, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.2 and the representation of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.2 vide office order dated 9.2.2016, Annexure A-2. Hence, the petitioner is before this court by way of instant petition. 4. The contention of petitioner is that he has been wrongly denied the benefit of judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2735 of 2010, Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Others, on the ground that the Forest Department did not have work charge establishment. As per petitioner, such findings is not tenable in view of the judgment passed by a Division of this Court in State of H. P. & Ors. vs. Ashwani Kumar, CWP No. 3111 of 2016 and also the judgment dated 23.05.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 160 of 2021. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the person junior to the petitioner has been granted the benefit of regularization on the post of driver w.e.f. 24.02.2006, whereas the petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 25.09.2007. Petitioner has, thus, sought parity with the case of Ashok Kumar, who was conferred aforesaid benefit vide office order dated 8.07.2013, Annexure A-3a, issued by respondent No.2. Further, the petitioner has also placed reliance upon information received under RTI Act from Divisional Forest Officer, Wildlife Division, Kullu, annexed as Annexure P-1. As per such information, the details of persons, who were granted work charge status in the years 1998, 2006 and 2007 has been provided. Petitioner has also placed reliance on the documents received under RTI Act according to which large number of vacancies existed during the years 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 in the cadre of driver. 5. Respondents have contested the claim of petitioner. Rejection order dated 09.02.2016, Annexure A-2, has been justified on the ground that there was no work charge establishment in the respondent department. As per respondents, the services of petitioner were rightly regularized w.e.f. 25.09.2007 as he did not fulfill the requirement of educational qualification and it was only after the sanction accorded by the Government on 09.08.2007 that the services of petitioner could be regularized. As per respondents, the services of petitioner were rightly regularized w.e.f. 25.09.2007 as he did not fulfill the requirement of educational qualification and it was only after the sanction accorded by the Government on 09.08.2007 that the services of petitioner could be regularized. Further, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the case of Ashok Kumar as it was under challenge in a writ petition before this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the documents available on file. 7. Admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of driver in the respondent department in the year 1996 on daily wage basis and his services were regularized w.e.f. 25.09.2007. 8. The respondents were under direction, vide judgment dated 09.03.2011 passed in CWP no. 159 of 2011, to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors. The impugned consideration order, Annexure A-2 reveals that the case of the petitioner was held to be distinct from Rakesh Kumar (Supra) on the ground that there was no work charge establishment in respondent department. 9. Judging the ground of rejection against the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is of considered view that the impugned rejection order, Annexure A-2, cannot be sustained in view of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, titled as State of H.P. & Others vs. Ashwani Kumar, in which it has been held as under:- “6. Having carefully perused material available on record, especially judgment rendered by this Court in Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P. & 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 & 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. 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 rendered its decision in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar decided on 28.07.2010, 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.”. 10. Recently in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Smt. Reema Devi, LPA No. 160 of 2021, decided on 23.05.2022, a Division Bench of this Court following Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) held as under in the case where also the respondent department was involved:- “11. Now adverting to the facts of the instant case, the grant of work charge status to late Shri Het Ram has been denied on the ground that Himachal Pradesh Forests Department had no work charge establishment. In Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) also right of the petitioner therein for grant of work charge status was considered when the HPPWD had ceased to be a work charge establishment. 12. This Court while delivering judgment in Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) had, thus, decided the principle that work charge establishment was not a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status and thus, would not confine only to the petitioner in the said case. In view of this, the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the judgment in Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) was a judgement in personam, cannot be sustained.” 11. In view of this, the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the judgment in Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) was a judgement in personam, cannot be sustained.” 11. Petitioner has placed on record office order dated 08.07.2013 issued by respondent No.2, whereby benefit of regularization after 8 years was granted in favour of Ashok Kumar, driver of the same department. Respondents have not disputed the fact that Ashok Kumar was junior to petitioner. The respondents cannot give separate and distinct treatment to its employees who otherwise are similarly situated. Though, the respondents have stated in their reply that the case of Ashok Kumar was under challenge in some Civil Writ Petition filed before this Court but no material has been placed on record to substantiate such contention. On the other hand, it is evident from the record that the office order dated 08.07.2003 issued in the case of Ashok Kumar was itself result of directions issued by this Court on 23.11.2011 in CWP (T) No. 12217 of 2008. 12. According to another contention of respondents, petitioner was not having requisite educational qualification and as such relaxation was sought from the government. Necessary sanction was accorded by the government on 09.08.2007, therefore, the regularization of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 25.09.2007 was justified. The contention so raised on behalf of the respondents also deserves to be rejected for the reasons that once the government had relaxed condition of educational qualification prescribed in the R&P Rules, there was no impediment for granting the benefit of regularization to the petitioner from the due date. Perusal of the sanction accorded by the government on 09.08.2007, Annexure R-1, nowhere reveals that there was specific direction to not to confer the due benefits on the persons, in respect of whom sanction was accorded, from the due dates. 13. Thus, the action of respondents in denying the claim of the petitioner for regularization after completion of 8 years' continuous service as daily wager is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory, hence cannot be sustained. 14. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the impugned office order dated 09.02.2016, Annexure A-2 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioner from the date when he completed 8 years continuous service on daily wage basis. 14. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the impugned office order dated 09.02.2016, Annexure A-2 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioner from the date when he completed 8 years continuous service on daily wage basis. Needless to say that the consequential benefits shall also follow subject, however, to the condition that petitioner shall be entitled for consequential financial benefits, if any, only for a period of three years immediately preceding the date of filing of petition. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also, the pending applications, if any.