ORDER : 1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief:- “i). To quash and set aside Annexure A-6 dated 24.12.2016 passed by respondent department. ii) Respondent department may kindly be directed to grant work charge status to the applicant on completion of 8 years of service, i.e. 1.1.2003. iii) That the respondent department may further kindly be directed to grant all consequential benefits to the applicant.” 2. The claim of petitioner is for grant of work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.2003 by counting his service to be continuous from 1995. 3. Respondents are contesting the claim of petitioner on the grounds that from 1995 till 1998, petitioner had not completed 240 days in any of the calendar years. It was w.e.f. 1999 that petitioner could complete 240 days of his daily wage employment. Thus, petitioner completed eight years of continuous service as daily wager on 31.12.2006 but since the State Government had abolished the work charge status for Class-IV employees w.e.f. 12.12.2005, petitioner was not entitled for automatic conformant of work charge status even on completion of eight years. Petitioner became entitled for regularization in 2010 and was accordingly regularized from due date. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 5. The instant litigation has a chequered history. The services of petitioner were disengaged in 1998. Petitioner approached the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 2304 of 1998. The said application was disposed of by the erstwhile Tribunal vide order dated 4.6.1999 in following terms:- “The learned Additional Advocate General has represented that the Department is ready to engage the applicant as daily-waged Beldar in another Section which is situated at a distance of 30 kms from the present place where the applicant was working. The aforesaid officer is accepted by the learned counsel for the applicant and therefore, in view of the aforesaid offer given by the learned Additional Advocate General, the applicant be reengaged without any undue delay. With these observations, the present application stands disposed of. However, the applicant shall not be entitled for back wages but the period of absence shall be treated for the purpose of seniority.” 6. With these observations, the present application stands disposed of. However, the applicant shall not be entitled for back wages but the period of absence shall be treated for the purpose of seniority.” 6. After his reengagement, petitioner once again approached this Court by way of CWP No. 4527 of 2012, seeking work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.2003 on the basis of his daily wage service, rendered by him since 1995 and a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.10.2014, passed in CWP No. 4527 of 2012, directed the respondents to consider the case of petitioner. Respondents rejected the case of petitioner vide office order dated 25.4.2015. Petitioner then approached the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1387 of 2015, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.2.2016 in following terms:- “The present original application, therefore, is allowed with the following directions:- i) Consequently, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for granting him work charge status on completion of 8 years service, that is, with effect from 1st January, 2003. ii) The respondents are further directed to grant all consequential benefits to the applicant within a period of one month on production of certified copy of this order.” 7. The aforesaid order passed by the learned erstwhile Tribunal was assailed by respondents by way of CWP No. 3010 of 2016 but the same was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 8.12.2016. Respondent No.3 again rejected the case of petitioner vide office order dated 24.12.2016, which is the subject matter of present petition. 8. The facts of the case now are not in dispute. Petitioner has rendered continuous daily wage service with 240 days in a calendar year since 1999 and was regularized in 2010. Thus, petitioner will be entitled for work charge status on completion of eight years of continuous daily wage service w.e.f. 1999. As per admission made by respondent No.3 in impugned order dated 24.12.2016, petitioner had completed eight years of continuous service as on 31.12.2006. In this view of the matter, petitioner became entitled for grant of work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.2007. 9. As per admission made by respondent No.3 in impugned order dated 24.12.2016, petitioner had completed eight years of continuous service as on 31.12.2006. In this view of the matter, petitioner became entitled for grant of work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.2007. 9. The petitioner has been denied the benefit of work charge status even from 1.1.2007 on the premise that the State Government had abolished the work charge establishment w.e.f. 12.12.2005 and in absence of availability of work charge establishment, on completion of eight years of daily wage continuous service of petitioner, he could not be granted such benefits. 10. The aforesaid reasons assigned by respondents cannot be countenanced. 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-6, 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 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. 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.” 11. 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 prerequisite 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 judgment in personam, cannot be sustained.” 12. In view of this, the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the judgment in Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) was a judgment in personam, cannot be sustained.” 12. 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. 13. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the impugned office order dated 24.12.2016, Annexure P-6, is quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to grant work charge status to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2007 till the date of his regularization. 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. 14. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.