ORDER : Petitioner was engaged daily wages as Electric Beldar in the respondent department, H.P. Public Works Department (PWD), on 1.3.1999 and during that year, he worked for 164 days only. In the year 2000 petitioner worked for 199 days, whereas, in the years 2001 and 2002, he worked only for 81 and 31 days respectively. 2. Petitioner was engaged in Tribal area where instead of 240 days, requirement of 180 working days is mandatory in each calender year for requisite number of years prescribed in the Policies/Schemes for regularization issued by Government of HP from time to time. 3. Engagement of petitioner as an Electric Beldar in the respondent department w.e.f. 1st March, 1999 is an undisputed fact. As per Mandays Chart, produced on record by respondent Department, as Annexure R-2, in the year 1999, petitioner served only for 164 days whereas in the year 2000 he served for 199 days. In the years 2001 and 2002, he served for 81 and 31 days only. Thereafter, according to the respondents, he left the job and was re-engaged on muster roll on 19.2.2015 in terms of award dated 31.10.2014 passed by H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla in Reference No.10 of 2012 (Annexure P-2) whereby respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of termination i.e. 31.1.2002 with seniority and continuity but without back wages. 4. For the aforesaid award, as indicated in the Mandays Chart (Annexure R-2), petitioner was considered in service with minimum 180 required working days since 2002 till his re-engagement in 2015 and as such, in the light of Court orders, he was considered to have completed 8 years upto 31.12.2009 and, thereafter, extending benefits of regularization policy dated 7.5.2010, his service has been regularized, for completion of 8 years, prospectively with cut off date 31.3.2010 and his pay has been fixed on notional basis w.e.f. 1.9.2011 till 17.12.2015 by taking into consideration the date of regularization of his immediate junior Smt. Rama Devi, T-mate and difference of amount on account of his pay fixation has also been paid to him, as evident from office order dated 7.1.2016 in Annexure R-3, by extending actual benefit to him w.e.f. 22.12.2015. 5. 5. Instant petition has been preferred by petitioner seeking direction to respondent department to confer work charge status upon him/regularize his service from the date of completion of 8 years service with all benefits incidental thereto in terms of policy of State and in the light of pronouncements of this High Court vide judgment dated 28th July, 2010 passed in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of HP and judgment dated 14.12.2009 passed in CWP No. 4489 of 2009 titled Ravi Kumar vs. State of H.P. by claiming that he is entitled for counting his service from the year 1999 and, thus, for conferment of work charge status/regularization on completion of 8 years in the year 2006. 6. Claim of petitioner has been opposed by respondent department on the ground that petitioner did not complete requisite 180 working days in the year 1999 and though, he had completed 180 working days in the year 2000, but, in subsequent years 2000 and 2001, he served only for 81 days and 31 days and thereafter, left the job, and Labour Court has ordered his re-engagement only w.e.f. 31.1.2002 but not from 1999 and therefore, petitioner has no tenable ground for claiming benefit of counting his 8 years service from 1999. 7. It is also contended on behalf of respondent department that work charge status in Public Works Department was abolished on 19.8.2005 whereas conferment of work charge status in term of Rakesh Kumar’s case is available only to those Class-IV workmen who were engaged on daily wage basis and were in continue service w.e.f. 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 and further that as per this judgment after abolition of work charge establishment, after 2005, no work charge status can be conferred upon daily wagers and as in case petitioner who even if considered in continuous service with 180 working days since 1999, his 8 years will be completing in 2006 whereas work charged establishment has been abolished on 19.8.2005. 8. To substantiate plea of bar to confer work charge status, in case of abolition of work charged establishment, judgment dated 27.10.2014 passed by a Single Bench of this High Court in CWP No. 4589 of 2012 titled Vinay Kumar vs. State of H.P. has also been referred on behalf of respondent-State. 9. 8. To substantiate plea of bar to confer work charge status, in case of abolition of work charged establishment, judgment dated 27.10.2014 passed by a Single Bench of this High Court in CWP No. 4589 of 2012 titled Vinay Kumar vs. State of H.P. has also been referred on behalf of respondent-State. 9. Claim of petitioner is that he was engaged in the year 1999, but, he was not allowed to complete 180 days during that year, and despite serving 199 days in the year 2000, he was terminated in the year 2001 and because of that, he could not complete 180 working days in that year. 10. Against his termination in 2001, petitioner had approached Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No. 1731 of 2001, titled Anil Kumar vs. State of HP, which was decided on 2.11.2002 with direction to respondent to re-engage the petitioner in the same capacity preferably at the same place or vicinity whereever the work was available with further direction that period of absence between disengagement and re-engagement shall be counted from his seniority. Petitioner has placed on record copy of order passed by Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal on record as Annexure P-1, in consequence whereof, petitioner was re-engaged on muster roll during December 2001 but again his services were terminated w.e.f. 31.1.2002. 11. Being aggrieved by his termination in 2002, petitioner had approached the concerned authority whereupon in the year 2012, a Reference Petition No. 10 of 2012 under Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 was referred to the H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla which was decided on 31.10.2014 directing the respondent Department to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of his termination i.e. 31.01.2002 with seniority and continuity but without back wages. Copy of award dated 31.1.2014 has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. 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. State of H.P. and others and CWPOA No. 5660 of 2019, titled as Ghanshyam Thakur 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. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to claim work charge status on completion of 8 years service in terms of pronouncement in Rakesh Kumar’s case and Ashwani Kumar’s case. 18. 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. 19. Respondents have treated the petitioner in service by considering his re-engagement w.e.f. 31.1.2002 in terms of award passed by Labour Court. But, they have ignored the order passed on 2.11.2002 by Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1731 of 2002 whereby first dis-engagement of petitioner in the year 2001 was considered void abinitio and illegal and was qushed with direction to respondent to re-engage him by counting his absence between dis-engagement and re-engagement towards his seniority. But, they have ignored the order passed on 2.11.2002 by Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1731 of 2002 whereby first dis-engagement of petitioner in the year 2001 was considered void abinitio and illegal and was qushed with direction to respondent to re-engage him by counting his absence between dis-engagement and re-engagement towards his seniority. In view of this order, as considered for the years 2002 to 2015, for the year 2001 also, working days of petitioner are to be taken as 180 working days and thus, petitioner is to be considered to have completed minimum 180 working days service as daily wager since the year 2000 and as such, his 8 years continuous shall be completed on 31.12.2007 instead of 31.12.2009 and thus, work charge status upon petitioner is to be conferred from 1.1.2008 with all consequential benefit except back wages as his service in terms of order passed by Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and Labour Court is to be considered in continuity from his initial engagement, but without back wages. 20. Labour Court had ordered to reinstate the services of petitioner on 31.10.2014, whereas, as per Mandays chart petitioner has been re-engaged on 19.9.2015, but, as per office order dated 7.1.2016, Annexure R-3, actual benefit has been extended to petitioner w.e.f. 22.12.2015 whereas petitioner shall be entitled for actual benefit from the date of passing of order by Labour Court i.e. 31.10.2014. 21. Petitioner has been regularized from 1.9.2011 and financial benefits have been extended to him by fixing his emolumnts w.e.f. 1.9.2011. Regularization may be governed by availablity of vacant regular post but work charge status does not inhibited by such condition and as observed supra, petitioner is entitled for work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.2008. Therefore, his wages/emoluments as work charge employee are to be calculated w.e.f. 1.1.2008 with all consequential benefits on notional basis in terms of orders passed by Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and Labour Court with actual monetary benefit w.e.f. date of order passed by Labour Court i.e. 31.10.2014. 22. In view of aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated therein, petition is allowed with direction to respondents to confer work charge status upon petitioner on completion of 8 years service i.e. w.e.f. 1.1.2008 with all consequential benefits including seniority, continuity, fixation of pay etc., however, actual monetary benefits shall be payable after 31.10.2014 i.e. w.e.f. 1.11.2014. 22. In view of aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated therein, petition is allowed with direction to respondents to confer work charge status upon petitioner on completion of 8 years service i.e. w.e.f. 1.1.2008 with all consequential benefits including seniority, continuity, fixation of pay etc., however, actual monetary benefits shall be payable after 31.10.2014 i.e. w.e.f. 1.11.2014. The arrears of benefits shall be paid to petitioner on on before 30th June, 2022, failing which petitioner shall also be entitled for interest at the rate of 7.5% thereon from the date of accrual thereof. Petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also pending application(s), if any.