ORDER : Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.05.2016 passed by respondent No.3-Superintending Engineer, whereby his claim for regularization/work charge status, after completion of eight years of service as a Work Inspector in Irrigation and Public Health Department ( in short ‘IPH’), has been rejected. It is claim of the petitioner that persons junior to him have already been regularized after completion of eight years of continuous daily wage service. 2. Petitioner was engaged as a daily wage beldar w.e.f. 05.02.1994 and worked as daily wager Work Inspector w.e.f. 17.03.1994 in IPH Department. Therefore, he continuously served by completing 240 working days in each calendar year and completed 8 years in the year 2001. His services were regularized on 27.12.2006 as Work Inspector. 3. After regularization, petitioner filed CWP No.787 of 2009, titled as Chuni Lal & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, which was disposed of on 18.05.2010 with a direction to respondents to consider case of the petitioner in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. & Others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316. However, case of the petitioner was not considered for regularization/grant of work charge status. Whereupon, petitioner again approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No.2097 of 2015, which was disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, in terms of law laid down by this Court in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others. 4. For omission to consider the case of the petitioner, he preferred Execution Petition No. 54 of 2017, titled as Chuni Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, wherein respondent-Department justified non grant of work charge status/ regularization in terms of Rakesh Kumar’s case for want of existence of Work Charge Establishment in the Department to Class-III category to which petitioner belongs, whereupon, the said execution was withdrawn and present petition has been preferred. 5. 5. Claim of the petitioner has been opposed by the respondent-Department on the ground that petitioner has been regularized vide order dated 27.11.2006 as Work Inspector as per Regularization Policy dated 09.06.2006 with prospective effect from the date of joining, and the petitioner accepted offer of regularization without any protest and joined on 28.12.2006 and, filed Original Application No.2097 of 2015 i.e. present case but after lapse of nine years seeking parity in terms of verdict in Rakesh Kumar’s case, for granting work charge status after completion of eight years of daily wage service and the case of the petitioner was considered in terms of Rakesh Kumar’s case and as Work Charge Establishment for Class-III category was abolished in the Department on 19.06.2001 i.e. before completion of eight years of service by the petitioner, therefore, petitioner was not considered to be entitled for work charge status on completion of eight years, and further that regularization, in terms of Policy of the Government, is permissible only against vacant post and as and when vacant post was available and Policy was issued by the Government, petitioner had been regularized with prospective date. 6. Respondent-Department has relied upon pronouncement of Division Bench in CWP No.2735 of 2010, Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and also of the Single Bench in CWP No.4589 of 2012, titled as Vinay Kumar vs. State of H.P., decided on 27.10.2014 for justifying rejection of claim of the petitioner to confer work charge status for abolition of Work Charge Establishment in the Department. 7. 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. 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. 8. It is undisputed that in Mool Raj Upadhaya Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1994 Supp. 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. 8. 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 prerequisite 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. 9. 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.” 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 12. No doubt petitioner is 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, petitioner is 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. 13. Regarding regularization of the petitioner 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 petitioner 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).” 14. 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.” 15. 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.” 15. 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. 16. To rebut the plea raised on behalf of respondent-Department regarding delay and laches, learned counsel for the petitioner 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. 17. In the light of above referred pronouncements plea of respondents-Department to oust the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches, in my opinion, in present case is not sustainable. Petitioner is a Work Inspector and belongs to the lowest rank in his 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. 18. 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. 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. 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.” 19. Similar benefits have been extended to similarly situated employees. Thus, petitioner cannot be discriminated on the ground of delay and laches, particularly when it was duty of respondents to extend such benefits to the petitioner. 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 petitioner cannot be refuted only on the ground of delay and laches and for joining on regularization without protest. 20. 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. 21. 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. 21. Learned Deputy Advocate General has contended that petitioner was engaged as a Class-III employee and, therefore, ratio of law laid down for Class-IV Beldars is not applicable in present case. Therefore, pronouncements related to Beldars are not applicable in case of the petitioner. 22. Policies of the State issued from time to time do not differentiate between Class-III and Class-IV employees for regularization of the daily wage as Policies have been issued for conferring work charge status or regularization of employees engaged on daily wage basis irrespective of their category/class and all Policies are applicable to all daily wage employees engaged either as Class-IV or Class-III employees. Therefore, contention of learned Deputy Advocate General in this regard is not tenable. It is also apt to notice that in Ashwani Kumar’s case also petitioner was Class-III employee. 23. 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. 24. In view of above discussion, petitioner is held entitled for work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2002 with all consequential benefits, including seniority, pay fixation etc. and accordingly, respondents are directed to ensure grant of work charge status to the petitioner on or before 30.06.2022 alongwith all consequential benefits, including payment of arrears, if any, failing which petitioner shall also be entitled for interest on the arrears @ 7.50% per annum from the date of accrual till final payment thereof from the respondents. 25. Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any.