ORDER : By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive relief : (a) That Annexure P-1 may be quashed and set-aside and the respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status to the applicant from the date he completed 8 years of service as per the law laid down in Rakesh Kumar’s case, with all the consequential benefits incidental thereof. 2. The case as set-up by the petitioner is that he was appointed as “beldar” in the Forest Department of Government of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. 01.01.1995 on daily wage basis. His services were regularized w.e.f. 14.09.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was entitled for work charge status 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, titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others. Having remained unsuccessful in getting his grievance redressed from the respondents, petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 7456 of 2013. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Civil Writ Petition No. 7456 of 2017 in following terms : “We do not pronounce on the merits of the case of the petitioner or that of the State which opposes the present petition but direct that the second respondent shall consider/determine as to whether the facts in this case are similar or identical to those in Rakesh Kumar’s case supra. The determination shall be by reasoned and speaking order after granting the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and placing on record such other and further material on which he seeks to rely. If on determination, the facts in this case are found to be identical to those in Rakesh Kumar’s case, the petitioner shall be granted the same relief. Such determination shall be done within eight weeks from today. Petition stands disposed of.” 3. In compliance to aforesaid order passed in CWP No. 7456 of 2013, 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 17.12.2015, Annexure P-1. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of instant petition. 4. Petition stands disposed of.” 3. In compliance to aforesaid order passed in CWP No. 7456 of 2013, 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 17.12.2015, Annexure P-1. 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, titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others, on the ground that the Forest Department did not have work charge establishment. As per petitioner, such findings are not tenable in view of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in State of H.P. and others 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. Petitioner has also relied upon documents Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-1/A to contend that the stand of the respondents stating unavailability of work charge establishment in Forest Department is incorrect. 5. Respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner. Rejection order dated 17.12.2015, Annexure P-1, has been justified on the ground that there was no work charge establishment in the Respondent-Department. As per respondents, the services of the petitioner were rightly regularized w.e.f. 14.09.2007. It has further been contended on behalf of the respondents that benefits under Annexure P-2 were given to the persons, who were initially engaged in the year 1984. Since the petitioner was engaged during the year 1995, he was not entitled for grant of work charge status. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents available on the file. 7. Admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Beldar on daily wage basis in the Respondent-Department w.e.f. 01.01.1995 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 14.09.2007. 8. The respondents were under direction vide judgment passed in CWP No. 7456 of 2013 to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and Others. 8. The respondents were under direction vide judgment passed in CWP No. 7456 of 2013 to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and Others. The impugned consideration order, Annexure P-1 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 the 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 P-1, cannot be sustained in view of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, titled 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. 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 H.P. 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.” 10. Recently in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Smt. Reema Devi, LPA No. 161 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. Thus, the action of the respondents in denying the claim of the petitioner for grant of work charge status after completion of 8 years’ continuous service as daily wager is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory, hence cannot be sustained. 12. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the impugned office order dated 17.12.2015, Annexure P-1, is quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to regularize 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. 13. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.