JUDGMENT : Petitioner No. 1 Daulat Ram and petitioner No. 2 late Charundu Ram were engaged in HPPWD Department as daily waged Beldars in August 1991 and November 1991, respectively. As per Mandays Chart, petitioner Daulat Ram continuously completed minimum 240 working days in each calendar year since 1997, whereas petitioner No. 2 Charundu Ram had completed minimum 240 working days continuously in each calendar year since 1998. Both of them had completed 8 years continuous service with minimum 240 working days in each calendar year on or before 31.3.2006, benefit of Regularization Policy dated 18.6.2007, formulated by respondent-State, was extended to them and their services were regularized vide Order dated 20.7.2007 with prospective effect and they joined as such on 26.7.2007. 2. Instant petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking direction to respondents for granting work-charge status/regularization with effect from the date from which petitioners had completed 8 years of continuous service as per Policy of the Government as well as law laid down by this High Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and others, with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary, pay fixation etc, as according to petitioners, they were entitled for regularization/work charge status in the year 2005 instead of year 2007. 3. Respondents-State has contested the petition on the ground that on regularization in the year 2007, petitioners had joined their regular service on 26.7.2007 without any protest, but filed the present petition in the year 2015 after a lapse of about 8 years and there is inordinate unexplained delay in filing the petition and, therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, as stale claim at a belated stage, i.e. after a period of 8 years is neither legally maintainable nor tenable. 4. Referring observations made in pronouncement of this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P., it has been contended on behalf of respondents-State that question of conferment of work-charge status upon the petitioners does not arise as work-charge status in respondent-Public Works Department for class-IV category has been abolished on 19.8.2005, i.e. prior to completion of 8 years of continuous service by the petitioners, with minimum 240 working days in each calendar year. In this regard reliance has also been placed on judgment dated 27.10.2014 rendered by a single Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4589 of 2012, titled Vinay Kumar Vs. State of H.P. 5. Apart from contest on aforesaid grounds, it has also been stated in the reply that in view of law laid down by this High Court in Rakesh Kumar’s case supra, after dismissal of Special Leave Petition/appeal, filed by the State in that case, in January 2015, matter was referred to the Finance Department as well as Administrative Department/Government and after obtaining advise from Finance as well as Administrative Departments, the Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, vide letter dated 15.5.2015, has issued instructions/guidelines regarding conferring of work charge status upon completion of continuous 8 years service by the workmen with 240 working days in each calendar year. For granting work-charge status as per guidelines, after re-verification of working days of each workmen, case of the petitioners is pending consideration with the Department and thus petition is liable to be dismissed being premature. 6. It has also been contended that petitioners had not completed 10 years continuous service with 240 working days as on or before 31.12.2002, therefore, they were not covered under verdict of the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyay’s case and, therefore, they were directly considered for regularization as per Policy dated 18.6.2007, which provided cut of date of completion of 8 years on 31.3.2006, but regularization with prospective effect against vacant post and for this reason and also for abolition of work-charge establishment in class-IV category w.e.f. 19.8.2005, petitioners’ claim for grant of work-charge status on completion of 8 years, is not maintainable as case of a daily wager can be considered for work-charge status or regularization on issuance/formation of subsequent policy by the Government. 7. To rebut the plea raised on behalf of respondent-Department regarding delay and laches, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred pronouncements of this High Court in CWPOA No. 5748 of 2019, titled Man Singh Vs. The State of H.P. and others, CWPOA No. 5660 of 2019, titled Ghanshyam Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, and CWPOA No. 46 of 2020, titled as Yashwant Singh and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 8. The State of H.P. and others, CWPOA No. 5660 of 2019, titled Ghanshyam Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, and CWPOA No. 46 of 2020, titled as Yashwant Singh and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 8. In the light of above referred pronouncements plea of respondents-Department to oust the petitioners on the ground of delay and laches, in my opinion, in present case is not sustainable. Petitioners are Beldars and belong to a lowest rank in their class. As per Policy a duty was cast on the respondents to consider the cases of eligible workmen for conferment of work charge status on completion of required number of years as per Policy. At this stage, it is apt to record that the plea taken in the reply that cases of the petitioner are being reconsidered after dismissal of Special Leave Petition in Rakesh Kumar’s case in January, 2015. Therefore, when case is pending consideration before the Department since 2015 and till date nothing has been communicated to the petitioner or to the Court regarding any decision taken with respect to the petitioners in the light of guidelines circulated by Engineer-in-Chief vide communication dated 15.6.2015, it does not lie in the mouth of respondents that petition is liable to be dismissed for delay and laches. Even otherwise, petitioners are eligible for benefits under the Policy and in consonance with pronouncements of the Courts. 9. The issue in this regard also stands settled in the judgment of Rakesh Kumar’s case, wherein it has been observed as under:- “6. The simple question is whether the delay defeats justice? In analyzing the above issue, it has to be borne in mind that the petitioners are only class-IV workers (Beldars). The schemes announced by the Government clearly provided that the department concerned should consider the workmen concerned for bringing them on the work-charged category. So, there is an obligation cast on the department to consider the cases of the daily waged workmen for conferment of the work-charged status, being on a work-charged establishment, on completion of the required number of years in terms of the policy. So, there is an obligation cast on the department to consider the cases of the daily waged workmen for conferment of the work-charged status, being on a work-charged establishment, on completion of the required number of years in terms of the policy. At the best, the petitioners can only be denied the interest on the eligible benefits and not the benefits as such, which accrued on them as per the policy and under which policy, the department was found to confer the status, subject to the workmen satisfying the required conditions.” 10. Similar benefits have been extended to similarly situated employees. Thus, petitioners cannot be discriminated on the ground of delay and laches, particularly when it was duty of respondents to extend such benefits to the petitioners. State should act as a model employer and should extend benefits of its Policies to all eligible persons, in consonance with pronouncements of the Court(s) which have attained finality, without any discrimination particularly when identical objections have already been overruled by the Courts and such pronouncements have attained finality,. Thus claim of the petitioners cannot be refuted only on the ground of delay and laches and for joining on regularization without protest. 11. Though Law of Limitation, is not applicable, however principle of delay and laches is attracted for adjudication of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner may be ousted for delay and laches in appropriate case. For otherwise strong merit in the case, in order to prevent exploitation of victims for omission and commission on the part of mighty State, taking into consideration the circumstances of the petition and incapability of petitioners to approach the Court invariably, delay and laches may be ignored for adjudication of issue raised in the Writ Petition on merits. Therefore, I am of the considered view that petitioners, in present petition, are not liable to be ousted on the ground the delay and laches. 12. In response to plea that work-charged establishment does not exist in the respondent-Department, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred pronouncements of this High Court in cases CWPOA No. 5748 of 2019, titled as Man Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWPOA No. 52 of 2019, titled Beli Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, CWPOA No. 5566 of 2019, titled as Reema Devi Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWPOA No. 52 of 2019, titled Beli Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, CWPOA No. 5566 of 2019, titled as Reema Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others and CWPOA No. 5660 of 2019, titled as Ghanshyam Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others wherein similar plea of respondent-State did not find favour of the Court. Crux of these pronouncements has been discussed hereinafter. 13. It is undisputed that in Mool Raj Upadhaya Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316, affidavit was filed by Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, formulating a Scheme for granting work-charged status to all daily-waged employees, serving in the State of Himachal Pradesh, in all Departments, irrespective of the fact that Department is/or was having work-charged establishment or not. In judgment dated 10.5.2018 rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Ashwani Kumar, upholding the order passed by erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, it has been pronounced that work-charged establishment is not a pre-requisite for conferment of work-charge status nor conversion of work-charged employee into regular employee would make such establishment non-existent. Therefore, abolition of work-charge establishment in the respondent-Department w.e.f. 19.8.2005 has no effect on the rights of petitioners for conferment of work-charged status after completion of 8 years in terms of Policy of the Government as well as verdict of Rakesh Kumar’s case. 14. Following observations of this Court made in Beli Ram’s case are also relevant to be referred here, which read as under:- “22. In Gauri Dutt and others Vs. State of H.P., reported in Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366, it has been held that the scheme formulated in Mool Raj Upadhaya’s case is applicable to daily-waged employees working in any department of the state of Himachal Pradesh and the employees, who are not governed by the directions given in Mool Raj Upadhaya’s case, shall be governed by a Scheme framed by the State in this regard and it has also been observed that granting of work-charged status would mean that an employee would get regular scale of pay. 23. Term “work-charged”, discussed State of Rajasthan v. Kunji Raman, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 517 , is in different context, whereas this term, in Himachal Pradesh, is used in different context. 23. Term “work-charged”, discussed State of Rajasthan v. Kunji Raman, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 517 , is in different context, whereas this term, in Himachal Pradesh, is used in different context. A person, working on daily-waged basis, before his regularization, is granted work-charged status on completion of specified number of years as daily-wager and effect thereof is that thereafter non-completion of 240 days in a calendar year would not result into his ouster from the service or debar him from getting the benefit of length of service for that particular year. Normally, work-charged status is conferred upon a daily-wager, on accrual of his right for regularization, on completion of prescribed period of service, but for non-regularization is for want of regular vacancy in the department or for any other just and valid reason. Therefore, it is a period interregnum daily-wage service and regularization, which is altogether different form the temporary establishment of work-charge, as discussed in the judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the State and, for practice in Himachal Pradesh, work-charged status is not conferred upon the person employed in a project but upon such daily-wage workers, who are to be continued after particular length of service for availability of work but without regularization for want of creation of post by Government for his regularization/ regular appointment. Therefore, work is always available in such cases and the charge of a daily-wager is created thereon to avoid his disengagement for reasons upon which a daily-wager can be dispensed with from service. 24. .. .. .. .. .. 25. On conferment of work-charged status, sword of disengagement, hanging on the neck of workmen, is removed on completion of specified period of daily-waged service, as thereafter instead of daily-wage, the employee would get regular pay-scale and would be entitled to other consequential benefits for which a daily-waged employee is not entitled.” 15. Undoubtedly, a daily wager shall only be regularized against available vacancy. However, for conferring work-charged status availability of vacancies is irrelevant. Undoubtedly, a daily wager shall only be regularized against available vacancy. However, for conferring work-charged status availability of vacancies is irrelevant. It is a status to be conferred upon daily-wager on completion of requisite period of service as daily-wager, in terms of Policy, in absence of regular vacancy, so as to safe guard the interest of daily-wager regarding his right to be regularized on completion of specific years on daily wages with requisite number of working days in each calendar year, so that after crossing a bar, a daily-wager may not be ousted to deprive him from regularization by discontinuing his services being daily-wager and for that purpose there is no need of any work-charged establishment in the Department, as work-charge status is to be conferred upon daily wager. Government has power to create or abolish work-charge establishment. In case claim of the workmen for regularization in terms of Policy is to be deferred for want of approval of the Government, availability of the vacancy or for any other action to be performed on the part of State or Department, then conferment of work-charge status on a daily waged cannot be denied for want of work-charge establishment in the Department. 16. Judgment in Vinay Kumar’s case relied upon by respondents has been passed by a Single Bench of this Court, whereas thereafter judgment on the same issue, in Ashwani Kumar’s case, has been passed by a Division Bench of this Court and the same is binding on this Court as for passing of judgment in Ashwani Kumar’s case by Division Bench, verdict of Single Judge is to be considered to have been over-ruled, therefore, grounds taken by respondents-Department that work-charge establishment in Public Works Department to class-IV posts had been abolished w.e.f. 19.8.2005 and thus benefit of conferment of work-charge status upon the petitioners cannot be extended, is not tenable. Hence, objection of the respondents to oust the petitioners in these grounds is not tenable. Judgment in Ashwani Kumar’s case has been rendered after pronouncement in Rakesh Kumar’s case. Both the pronouncements are by Division Benches. Thus, present petition is to be adjudicated in terms of ratio of Ashwani Kumar’s case read with judgment passed in Rakesh Kumar’s case. 17. Hence, objection of the respondents to oust the petitioners in these grounds is not tenable. Judgment in Ashwani Kumar’s case has been rendered after pronouncement in Rakesh Kumar’s case. Both the pronouncements are by Division Benches. Thus, present petition is to be adjudicated in terms of ratio of Ashwani Kumar’s case read with judgment passed in Rakesh Kumar’s case. 17. No doubt petitioners are not covered under the Policy formulated and approved by the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhaya’s case, but in terms of pronouncements of the Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Kumar’ case which has attained finality for affirmation from the Supreme Court, read with pronouncement of this High Court in Ashwani Kumar’s case, petitioners are entitled for conferring work-charge status immediately on completion of 8 years continuous service as daily waged with 240 working days in each calendar year. These judgments are binding in nature and it is settled law that binding decision should neither be ignored nor be overlooked. 18. Regarding regularization of the petitioners from prospective dates of passing of order after issuance of fresh Policy of the Government and withholding regularization/grant of work-charged status to the petitioners for want of time gap between two Policies, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred pronouncements of this Court passed in CWP No. 2415 of 2012, titled as Mathu Ram Vs. Municipal Corporation and others, decided on 31.7.2014, wherein learned Single Judge has made the following observations:- “5. It cannot be disputed that the policy of regularisation 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 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).” 19. Judgment of Single Bench passed in Mathu Ram’s case has been affirmed by a Division Bench in LPA No. 44 of 2015, observing as under:- “5. Respondent was appointed in the month of November, 1993. He has completed 8 years of service in the year 2001. Judgment of Single Bench passed in Mathu Ram’s case has been affirmed by a Division Bench in LPA No. 44 of 2015, observing as under:- “5. Respondent was appointed in the month of November, 1993. He has completed 8 years of service in the year 2001. The workmen, who have completed 8 years of service, were required to be regularized immediately after the completion of 8 years’ service. Appellant - corporation is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The practice of the respondent-corporation not to regularize the services of the workmen, though they have completed 8 years of service, amounts to unfair labour practice. 6. The issue raised in the LPA is no more res integra in view of the judgment rendered in CWP No.2735 of 2010 decided on 28.7.2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: “2. The only reference to be made for analyzing the grievance of the petitioners is two orders of the Government. One order is dated 3.4.2000 and other is dated 6.5.2000. Order dated 3.4.2000, reads as follows: “In partial modification of this Department letter of even number dated 8th July, 1999 on the above subject, I am directed to say that the Government has now decided that the Daily Waged/Contingent Paid workers in all the Departments including Public Works and Irrigation and Public Health Departments (other than work-charged categories)/Boards/ Corporations /Universities, etc. who have completed 8 years of continuous service (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year) as on 31-03-2000 will be eligible for regularization. It has further been decided that completion of required years of service makes such daily wager/contingent paid worker eligible for consideration to be regularized and regularization in all cases will be from prospective effect i.e. from the date the order of regularization is issued after completion of codal formalities. 2. In view of the above decision and in order to avoid any litigation and also any hardship to daily wagers departments shall do the regularization based on seniority and they will ensure that senior persons are regularized first rather than regularizing junior persons first. 3. Other terms and conditions like fulfillment of essential qualification as prescribed in R&P Rules, etc. etc. 3. Other terms and conditions like fulfillment of essential qualification as prescribed in R&P Rules, etc. etc. as laid down in this department letter of 8th July, 1999, as referred to above, shall continue to be operative. 4. These instructions may kindly be brought to the notice of all concerned for strict compliance. 5. These instructions have been issued with the prior approval of the Finance Department obtained vide their Dy. No. 852 dated 23-03-2000.” 3. Order dated 6.5.2000, to the extent relevant, reads as follows: “2. During the process of regularization of daily wagers, various issues and problems relating to these workers concerning their regularization have been brought to the notice of the Government. The Government in order to avoid such confusion or problems has decided to streamline the existing procedure/instructions in order to bring uniformity of procedure in various Departments of the Government. It has, therefore, been decided that henceforth: (i) Daily Waged/Contingent Paid Workers who have completed required years of continuous service (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year except where specified otherwise for the tribal areas) which as per latest instructions issued vide this Department letter of even number dated 3-4-2000 is 8 years as on 31-03-2000 shall be eligible for regularization. However, in Departments/ Corporations/Boards, where the system of the work charge categories also exists, eligible daily wagers will be considered first for bringing them on the work charge category instead of regularization. Such eligible daily waged workers/contingent paid workers will be considered for regularization against vacant posts or by creation of fresh posts and in both these events prior approval of Finance Department will be required as per heir letter No. Fin-1-C(7)-1/99 dated 24-12-1999. The terms and conditions for such regularization shall be governed as per Annexure –‘A’.” 4. This scheme was in force till a new scheme introduced on 9th June, 2006. The contention of the petitioners is that on completion of 8 years service, as per the scheme extracted above, they are liable to be granted the work-charged status being on a work charged establishment.” 20. This scheme was in force till a new scheme introduced on 9th June, 2006. The contention of the petitioners is that on completion of 8 years service, as per the scheme extracted above, they are liable to be granted the work-charged status being on a work charged establishment.” 20. Conclusion of verdict of Mathu Ram’s and Rakesh Kumar’s cases, with respect to gap between issuance/formation of two policies, is that previous policy/scheme shall remain in force till issuance/formation/introduction of subsequent policy/scheme, but cut of date for completion of requisite number of years shall be redundant in subsequent years and benefit of policy/scheme shall be extended to employees immediately on completion of continuous service for requisite number of years with minimum prescribed number of working days in each calendar year. In case regularization is not possible for want of availability of vacancy, the work-charge status has to be conferred upon daily wage employee on completion of requisite number of years prescribed in the Policy/Scheme. 21. Despite having bestowed status of custodian of rights of its citizens, State or its functionaries invariably are adopting exploitative method in the field of public employment to avoid its liabilities, depriving the persons employed from their just claims and benefits by making initial appointments on temporary basis, i.e. contract, adhoc, tenure, daily-wage etc., in order to shirk from its responsibility and delay the conferment of work-charge status or extension of benefits of regularization Policy of the State by not notifying Policies in this regard in future. Present case is also an example of such practice where despite stating in the reply that case of petitioners is under consideration for grant of work charge status in terms of Rakesh Kumar’s case, but the same has not been conferred upon the petitioners till date. 22. Consequently, in view of above discussion and pronouncements of the Court, respondents are directed to grant work-charge status to the petitioners from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service in the Department with 240 working days in each calendar year along with all consequential benefits including salary, seniority, pay fixation and pensionary benefits, if any, on or before 30th June, 2022. In case admissible benefits are not paid to the petitioners on or before 30th June, 2022, respondents shall also be liable to pay interest thereon from accrual thereof at the rate of 7.50% per annum. 23. In case admissible benefits are not paid to the petitioners on or before 30th June, 2022, respondents shall also be liable to pay interest thereon from accrual thereof at the rate of 7.50% per annum. 23. Petitioner No. 2 has expired during pendency of petition, therefore, benefits payable to him shall be extended/disbursed to his legal heirs brought on record as petitioners No. 2(a) to 2(c) as per their entitlement in accordance with rules as applicable. Petition is allowed in aforesaid terms along with pending applications.