JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. Instant petition has been filed for grant of following relief:- “a. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Board to grant work charge status to the present petitioner w.e.f. 11.03.2000, when he has completed eight years of continuous service as daily wager with 240 days in each calendar year along with interest on the delayed arrears or salary and the benefits of revised pay salary till realization of the amount.” 2. Petitioner is an ex-serviceman. After his discharge from Indian Army, he had registered himself with ex-servicemen cell on 16.01.1990. 3. Petitioner was engaged as daily waged worker by respondent No.2 w.e.f. 11.03.1992. He worked in the same capacity till 18.12.2006 when he was offered temporary post of Peon, which the petitioner accepted and continued to work on such post till his superannuation in the year 2012. 4. Petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 4779 of 2019 with a prayer that his initial engagement with respondent No.2 in the year 1992 be declared as regular appointment and he be granted all consequential benefits. A coordinate bench of this Court vide judgment dated 21st September, 2021, rejected the prayer of the petitioner. However, it was observed that the work period of petitioner w.e.f. 1992 till 2006 could be considered for his eligibility for conferment of work charge status. Accordingly, liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate representation and the respondents were directed to consider the same strictly in accordance with the law laid down by this Court vide judgments dated 31.07.2014 in case titled Mathu Ram v. Municipal Corporation and Ors, CWP No.2415 of 2012 and 28.07.2010, in case titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of HP & Ors, CWP No.2735 of 2010. Further liberty was reserved in favour of petitioner to approach the appropriate Court of law, if he still remained aggrieved. 5. Petitioner preferred representation to respondent No.2, but remained unsuccessful. His representation has been rejected by respondent No.2 vide office order dated 18.04.2022, Annexure P-2 on the ground that respondent No.2 did not have work charge establishment at any point of time, therefore, the judgment passed by this Court in the cases of Rakesh Kumar and Mathu Ram (supra) would not be applicable. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 7. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 7. Petitioner has assailed order Annexure P-2 on the ground that the reasons for rejection of the case of the petitioner are untenable in law. It has been contended that this Court has already taken view that existence of work charge establishment is not a pre-condition for grant of work charge status. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order. 9. Noticeably, in ordinary circumstances the claim of the petitioner would have been held to be hopelessly barred by delay and laches. Petitioner got fresh cause of action on passing of judgment in CWP No. 4779 of 2019. The respondents accepted the verdict and proceeded to decide the representation of petitioner without even considering the factor of delay, if any, in the matter. 10. Respondents have abstained from filing any reply in the present petition despite various opportunities. In this background, the case of the petitioner is required to be considered on merits. 11. A Division Bench of this Court (in which I was one of the member) while deciding LPA No. 160 of 2021, State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Smt. Reema Devi, vide judgment dated 23.05.2022, had dealt with the issue of grant of work charge status to the employees of establishment which had ceased to be a work charge establishment or had not been such an establishment and has held as under:- “9. After filing of O.A. No. 3109 of 2015, the Division Bench of this Court passed judgment in CWP No.3111 of 2016, titled State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Ashwani Kumar on 10.05.2018 and upheld the order passed by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal dated 23.06.2014 in O.A. No. 412 of 2016, in the following manner:- “6. Having carefully perused material available on record, especially judgment rendered by this Court in Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P. & 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 & 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 rendered its decision in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar decided on 28.07.2010, 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.” The aforesaid findings rendered by this Court were upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 10. It is in light of aforesaid findings that the impugned judgment has been passed. In the facts of the case Ashwani Kumar (supra), the employer had resisted the claim of employee on the ground that HPPWD had ceased to be a work charge establishment for Class-III employees w.e.f. 01.04.2011 and for Class-IV employees w.e.f. 19.08.2005 and thus, the petitioner therein, who had not completed 8 years' service on or before abolition of work charge establishment was not entitled for grant of status of work charge employee. Hence, the Division Bench of this Court while deciding Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) had held that the work charge establishment is not a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status. 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. 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 pre-requisite 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 judgement in personam, cannot be sustained.” 12. In the light of above exposition, the reason assigned by respondent No.2 for rejection of representation of petitioner is not sustainable. The work charge establishment is not pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status. 13. In result, the impugned order dated 18.04.2022, Annexure P-2 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for conferment of work charge status immediately on completion of requisite period provided by the policy of the government prevalent at the time. It is clarified that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits except financial benefits for the reason that he has not been diligent enough to espouse his claim for a number of years even after his retirement. Petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending applications.