ORDER : 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 15.02.2014, Annexure P-1, whereby representations having been filed by the petitioners herein, in terms of order dated 21.08.2013, passed by this Court in CWP No. 6162 of 2013, praying therein for conferment of work charge status from the date they completed 8 years regular service, came to be rejected, petitioners approached erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of filing Original Application bearing OA No. 4513 of 2015, which now on account of abolishment of Tribunal, stands transferred to this Court and has been re-registered as CWPOA No. 6259 of 2019, praying therein for following main relief: “That Annexure P-1, may be quashed and the respondents may be ordered to grant work charge status to the applicants from the dates they completed 8 years service, with all the benefits incidental thereof.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that petitioners namely Shri Hans Raj, Sharwan Kumar, Mohinder Kumar, Desh Raj, Naresh Kumar and Shri Geeta Ram came to be appointed as Class-IV employees on daily wage basis in Himachal Pradesh Nagar Vikas Pradikaran (now renamed as HIMUDA) w.e.f. 5.5.1993, 1.9.1993, 1.3.2001, 3.6.1999, 15.06.1999 and 4.4.1999, respectively. Subsequently, all the above named persons came to be deployed in Printing and Stationery Department on secondment basis w.e.f. 26.11.2002, 26.11.2002, 24.11.2008, 1.6.2009, 1.6.2009 and 1.6.2009, respectively and during their employment in the aforesaid department, they were ordered to be regularized against the posts of Press Daftri, Press Mazdoor and Binding Machine Attendants, respectively. Since, despite petitioners’ having completed 8 years of regular service with HIMUDA, they were not granted work charge status, they filed CWP bearing No. 6162 of 2013 in this Court, praying therein that they be also conferred work charge status in the light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2020, titled as Rakesh Kumar and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 28.07.2010. Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 21.08.2013, while disposing of the aforesaid petition filed by the petitioners, permitted them to file representation to the department concerned, seeking therein aforesaid relief with the further direction to the department to consider and decide the same in the light of judgment rendered in Rakesh Kumar’s case (supra). Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 21.08.2013, while disposing of the aforesaid petition filed by the petitioners, permitted them to file representation to the department concerned, seeking therein aforesaid relief with the further direction to the department to consider and decide the same in the light of judgment rendered in Rakesh Kumar’s case (supra). Vide order dated 15.02.2014, Annexure P-1, representations having been filed by petitioners came to be rejected by CEO-cum-Secretary, HIMUDA on the ground that they did not complete 8 years of continuous service, as on 31.3.2000 on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calender year in HIMUDA and as such, they are not entitled to benefit. In the aforesaid background, petitioner have filed petition at hand, praying therein relief, as reproduced hereinabove. 3. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the order impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court finds that there is no dispute that at the first instance all the petitioners were engaged against Class-IV Posts in HIMUDA w.e.f. 5.5.1993, 1.9.1993, 1.3.2001, 3.6.1999, 15.06.1999 and 4.4.1999, respectively. 4. Reply filed by respondent-HIMUDA itself reveals that all the petitioners were deployed in Printing and Stationery Department on secondment basis after their having completed 8 years regular service with 240 days in each calendar year in HIMUDA except petitioner- Mohinder Kumar, and as such, reasoning assigned by respondent-HIMUDA in the impugned order dated 15.02.2014 that the petitioners had not completed 8 years of regular service on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calendar in HIMUDA, on the date of deployment in the Printing and Stationery Department, is factually incorrect and could not be made basis for rejecting the claim of the petitioners for grant of work charge status in light of judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Kumar’s case, supra. Respondent-HIMUDA has averred in its reply that as per judgment dated 28.07.2010, titled Rakesh Kumar and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Division Bench of this Court directed respondents to consider the cases of applicants/petitioners for conferment of work charge status subject to their eligibility in terms of instruction/policy dated 3.4.2000, which has attained clarity vide another instruction/policy dated 6.5.2000, whereby daily wage workers, who had completed 8 years of continuous service (with minimum 240 days in a calendar year as on 31.3.2000) are/were to be considered for regularization/work charge basis. As per respondent-HIMUDA, since petitioner had not completed 8 years of continuous service as on 31.3. 2000, which was a prerequisite criteria for grant of work charge status in terms of the instruction/policy dated 6.5.2000, issued by Government, cases of the petitioners rightly came to be rejected vide order dated 15.02.2014, however, aforesaid stand taken by respondent-HIMUDA is not only contrary to the facts, but to law also. Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2415 of 2012, titled Mathu Ram vs. Municipal Corporation and Others, decided vide judgment dated 31.07.2014, has already 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/her completion of 8 years of service on daily wage basis in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Rakesh Kumar’s case (supra). Needless to say, aforesaid judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mathu Ram’s case (supra), has attained finality. Appeal having been filed by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla against the judgment of Division Bench, passed in LPA No. 44 of 2015, whereby judgment rendered by learned Single Judge in Mathu Ram’s case was upheld already stands dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court and as such, judgment passed in Mathu Ram’s case is squarely applicable in the present case. 5. Having taken note of aforesaid judgment rendered in Mathu Ram’s case (supra), this Court in case titled State of H.P. vs. Naresh Kumar, passed in Review Petition No. 1 of 2021, has held as under: “10. 5. Having taken note of aforesaid judgment rendered in Mathu Ram’s case (supra), this Court in case titled State of H.P. vs. Naresh Kumar, passed in Review Petition No. 1 of 2021, has held as under: “10. Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2415 of 2012, titled Mathu Ram vs. Municipal Corporation and Others, decided vide judgment dated 31.07.2014, has already 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 wage basis in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, dated 28.07.2010, titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and Others (supra). Para-5 of Mathu Ram (supra) is reproduced herein-below: “5. It cannot be disputed that the policy of regularization has been extended from time to time. The mere fact that there was a time gap in issuance of the policy of regularisation which prescribed different cut off dates cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of regularisation to the petitioner on his completion of 8 years of service on daily waged basis in terms of Rakesh Kumar (supra).” 11. Reliance is also placed to the judgment dated 12.03.2020, passed by this Court in CWP No. 4482 of 2019, titled State of H.P. and Another vs. Rajinder Kumar, wherein, this Court held as under: “10. The net result is that once the Government itself has framed policy of regularization and the same is extended from time to time, then 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 benefits of regularization to workmen on its completion of the requisite length of service.” 12. It has been also held by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6912 of 2021, titled State of H.P. and Others vs. Swaran Rekha, wherein this court held as under:- “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 vs. Mathu Ram, decided on 13.10.2015, facts of which case are somewhat identical to the present case. 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 vs. 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. 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.” 6. During the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioners, invited attention of this Court to the office order dated 11.4.2019, annexed with the reply filed by respondent-HIMUDA, (Annexure R-1), perusal whereof reveals that two petitioners namely Hans Raj and Sharwan Kumar have been already granted work charge status from the date of their having completed 8 years of service in HIMUDA, if it so, it is not understood that on what basis, similar claim being raised by remaining petitioners can be denied by the respondent-HIMUDA. 7. Though, Mr. C.N. Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent-HIMUDA argued that once services of all the petitioners stood deployed with respondent No. 2 before their having completed 8 years of service on daily wage basis, prayer if any, for conferment of work charge status cannot be considered by HIMUDA, but aforesaid submission being totally contrary to record deserves outright rejection. 8. As has been taken note hereinabove, reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, itself reveals that all the petitioners had completed 8 years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year before their deployment in the Printing and Stationry Department. If it is so, prayer for grant of work charge status after completion of 8 years daily wage service is required to be considered by respondent/HIMUDA, not by respondent No. 2. 9. If it is so, prayer for grant of work charge status after completion of 8 years daily wage service is required to be considered by respondent/HIMUDA, not by respondent No. 2. 9. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken note of supra, there appears to be merit in the present case and accordingly, same is allowed. Impugned order dated 15.02.2014, Annexure P-1, is hereby quashed and set aside and respondent-HIMUDA is directed to grant work charge status to petitioners No. 3 to 6 from the date of their having completed 8 years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year, as has been done in the case of two petitioners namely Hans Raj and Sharwan Kumar with all consequential benefits, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. However, it is made clear that the monetary benefits to the petitioners would be restricted to three years prior to filing of CWP No. 6162 of 2013. 10. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending applications, if any.