JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Petitioner herein was engaged as a Chowkidar with the Respondent -Corporation in the year, 1990 and since then, he had been regularly working on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calendar year till the time his services came to be terminated vide order dated 31.3.1997. In the year, 1997, a theft took place at Solan Forest Depot and petitioner was found absent from duty at that point of time, as a result thereof, his services were terminated by the Respondent-Corporation vide order dated 31.3.1997. Aforesaid termination order dated 31.3.1997 came to be assailed by the petitioner before the erstwhile HP Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application, however, on account of its abolishment, the same came to be transferred to this Court. However, before the same could be decided by this Court, matter again came to be transferred to erstwhile HP Administrative Tribunal on account of its re-establishment and was registered as TA No. 3577 of 2015. Vide order dated 10.5.2016, erstwhile Tribunal allowed the Transfer Application and set - aside the termination order dated 31.3.1997. Vide aforesaid order, though erstwhile Tribunal held the petitioner entitled for regularization and seniority, but without any back wages. 2. Aforesaid order dated 10.5.2016, was further laid challenge in this Court by the respondents vide CWP No. 893 of 2019, but the fact remains that the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 18.12.2019. This Court while passing aforesaid judgment held petitioner entitled for back wages w.e.f. 10.5.2017. This Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to make representation for regularization of his services, within two weeks from the date of passing of judgment in accordance with regularization policy. 3. Having taken note of the representation filed by the petitioner in terms of aforesaid judgment passed by this Court, respondents considered the case of the petitioner for regularization w.e.f. 1.1.1999, but ordered his regularization w.e.f. 20.8.2007 i.e. from the date his juniors were regularized. 4. 3. Having taken note of the representation filed by the petitioner in terms of aforesaid judgment passed by this Court, respondents considered the case of the petitioner for regularization w.e.f. 1.1.1999, but ordered his regularization w.e.f. 20.8.2007 i.e. from the date his juniors were regularized. 4. Since petitioner had actually completed eight years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year in December, 1998 and he had become entitled for regularization w.e.f. 1.1.1999 in terms of the regularization policy framed and adopted by the Respondent-Corporation, he was compelled to approach this Court by way of instant petition, praying therein for following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus Or other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, directing the Respondents to modify the order dated 2.12.2020 ( Annexure P-5) to the extent that the service of the petitioner be regularized after completion of 8 years of service w.e.f. 1.1.1999 with all consequential benefits. ii) In case relief No.i) is granted, accordingly Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to re-fix the pay of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1999 and pay/release the arrear in favour of the petitioner alongwith 12% interest.” 5. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner is that once it is not in dispute that petitioner was initially engaged as Chowkidar by the Respondent-Corporation in the year, 1990 and he had completed eight years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year in the year, 1998, his services ought to have been regularized w.e.f. 1.1.1999. Mr. Singh further argued that though services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 31.3.1997, but since such order was subsequently set-aside by the competent court of law and petitioner was also held entitled for back wages, order dated 2.12.2020, thereby regularizing services of the petitioner w.e.f. 20.8.2007, needs to be modified. Mr. Singh also disputed the claim of the respondents that services of the petitioner have been regularized from the date his juniors were regularized. Mr. Singh also disputed the claim of the respondents that services of the petitioner have been regularized from the date his juniors were regularized. To substantiate his aforesaid claim, he specifically invited attention of this Court to various documents placed on record alongwith rejoinder, perusal whereof clearly reveals that services of the persons junior to the petitioner were regularized much ahead of the petitioner that too after completion of eight years daily wage service in terms of the policy of regularization framed in the year, 1997. 6. To the contrary, Mr. Abhishek Nagta, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Corporation, supported the impugned action of the Respondent-Corporation. He submitted that services of the petitioner have been rightly regularized from the date of regularization of his juniors which fact has been otherwise admitted by the petitioner in the writ petition. He submitted that petitioner as well as other similarly situate persons were though surplus in the Corporation but yet government, with a view to rescue the petitioner, offered regular appointment by relaxing the qualification. He submitted that pursuant to policy of regularization framed by the government of Himachal Pradesh in the year, 2006, surplus daily wagers in other government departments were offered regular appointment against vacancies available in such departments. While referring to the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5907 of 2010, Sukh Chain v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors, Mr. Nagta argued that judgment rendered in Janam Singh’s case cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner because in Sukh Chain supra, Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that Forest Corporation cannot be compelled to regularize all employees, who have completed eight years service, especially when there is no work available. He further argued that otherwise also, plea made by the petitioner for conferment of work charge status after completion of eight years daily wage service is not tenable because respondent-Forest Corporation was not a work charged establishment. He submitted that at no point of time, regularization policy framed by the State was ever adopted by the Corporation and as such, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regularization after his having completed eight years daily wage service in terms of policy of regularization framed in the year 1997-99, is not tenable in the eye of law. 7. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that facts, as have been noticed in the earlier part of the judgment, are not in dispute and as such, need not be discussed at this stage. It is admitted fact that petitioner was initially engaged as Chowkidar with Respondent-Corporation in the year, 1990 and in this capacity, he continued to work till 31.3.1997, on which date, his services were terminated. It is also not in dispute that termination order dated 31.3.1997 was held to be bad in law by the erstwhile Tribunal vide order dated 10.5.2016. Most importantly, vide aforesaid order dated 10.5.2016, erstwhile Tribunal held the petitioner entitled to reinstatement alongwith seniority but without any back wages for that period. It is also not in dispute that in a writ petition having been filed by the Forest Corporation, aforesaid order dated 10.5.2016, passed by the erstwhile Tribunal was upheld and beside continuation of service, petitioner was also held entitled for back wages w.e.f. 10.5.2017. If order dated 10.5.2016 and judgment dated 18.12.2019 passed by the erstwhile Tribunal and this Court are perused in conjunction, it can be safely concluded that for all intents and purposes, petitioner was held to be in continuous service in the capacity of Chowkidar w.e.f. 1999 till the passing of the aforesaid order by the erstwhile Tribunal. 8. Record clearly reveals that Government of Himachal Pradesh framed regularization policy for regularization of the services of the daily wagers in the year 1999 by modifying the earlier regularization policy, which was adopted by the respondent-Corporation. Perusal of aforesaid regularization policy clearly reveals that services of a daily wager, who had completed eight years service with 240 days in each calendar year were required to be regularized after completion of eight years. In the instant case petitioner had actually completed eight years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year in 1998 and as such, his services were required to be regularized w.e.f. 1.1.1999, as was claimed by him, but for no justification, the department, despite there being clear cut finding in favour of the petitioner, proceeded to regularize his services w.e.f. 20.8.2007. Though respondent claimed that services of the petitioner have been regularized from the date his junior namely Satish Kumar was regularized but material placed on record by the petitioner alongwith rejoinder clearly reveals that persons appointed/engaged after engagement of the petitioner in the year, 1990 were given benefit of regularization after their having completed eight years daily wage service in terms of policy of regularization framed in the year, 1999. If the sur-rejoinder filed by the Respondent-Corporation to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner is perused in its entirety, it has been nowhere disputed that persons junior to the petitioner were regularized much ahead of the petitioner in terms of the regularization policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in the year, 1999. It is also not in dispute that similarly situate persons namely Lal Singh, Lalita Sharma, Tota Ram, Daulat Ram, Bhagat Ram, Janam Singh, Naresh Kumari, Ramesh Kumar, Mohinder Kumar, Jagdish Ram, Krishan Lal, Harbans Lal, Balak Ram etc. and many other junior persons were granted benefit of regularization after completion of eight years of daily wage service. Similarly, persons namely Janam Singh, Lalita Sharma and Tota Ram, who had approached the competent court of law for similar relief stand granted such relief, whereas for no plausible reason or justification, services of the petitioner have not been regularized from the date he completed eight years service from the date of his initial engagement. 9. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Sukh Chain supra that the question of regularization would arise only when the work force is retained in the service and not when sought to be retrenched, however, in the case at hand, it is matter of fact that at no point of time, services of the petitioner were retrenched on account of his being surplus, rather his services were terminated in the year, 1997, on account of dereliction of duty, however, such termination order was set-aside by the competent court of law, as a result whereof, he was deemed to be in continuous service w.e.f. 1990 till his retrenchment, pursuant to order dated 10.5.2016, passed by the erstwhile Tribunal. Moreover, observation made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sukh Chain supra that case decided by the erstwhile Tribunal in Janam Singh does not compel the Corporation to regularize all the employees, who have completed eight years of service, may not be of any help to the respondent-Corporation because aforesaid observation was made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in that case taking note of the fact that petitioner therein was not Chowkidar, however in the instant case, it is not in dispute that petitioner herein was appointed as Chowkidar on daily wage basis in the year 1990. Similarly, in Sukh Chain supra, coordinate Bench of this Court categorically held that there is no quarrel qua the submission that policy regarding regularization was applicable to the Corporation, but while posing the question to itself “whether there should have been regularization at a stage, when the Corporation itself was proposing to retrench the workmen for want of work” co-ordinate Bench observed that regularization can only be granted if there is work available with the corporation. As has been observed herein above that though Corporation was proposing to retrench the workmen for want of work but such proposal never materialized, rather government came to the rescue of the poor workmen and ordered for their regularization in terms of the policy of regularization. No doubt, as per policy of the regularization, workmen after his/her having completed eight years service could be considered for regularization against the available vacancy but in the instant case, there is ample material available on record, as has been placed on record by way of rejoinder, that persons junior to petitioner were regularized ahead of the petitioner in terms of the policy of regularization framed in the year, 1999 after their having completed eight years service, meaning thereby, in the year 1998, when petitioner had actually completed eight years service, not only sufficient work was available rather vacancies, against which petitioner could be regularized, were also available. 10. Another ground raised by the learned counsel for the Corporation with regard to work charge establishment is not of much relevance in the present case and as such, may not be available to the Respondent-Corporation. 10. Another ground raised by the learned counsel for the Corporation with regard to work charge establishment is not of much relevance in the present case and as such, may not be available to the Respondent-Corporation. It has been categorically held by this Court that work charge establishment is not pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status, rather in terms of mandate contained in Mool Raj Upadhaya v. State of HP and Ors. 1994 Supl. (2) SCC 316, a workman after his /her having completed ten years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year is entitled for conferment of work charge status. Aforesaid finding returned by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Ashwani Kumar (supra), has been already upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, while dismissing the SLP having been filed by the appellant-State against the judgment rendered in Ashwani Kumar (supra). While placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Ashwani Kumar (supra), Coordinate Bench of this Court in LPA No. 161 of 2021, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Smt. Reema Devi, decided on 23.5.2022, has again held that work charge status is not a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status. If it is so, it is required to be conferred upon workman after his/her having completed eight years service. 11. At this stage, a futile attempt came to be made by the learned counsel for the Corporation to defeat the claim of the petitioner for regularization w.e.f. 1.1.1999, on the ground that at the time of regularization of the petitioner, in the year, 2007, policy of regularization framed in the year, 1997 was not in vogue, rather same stood replaced by the policy of regularization, 2006. If policy of regularization framed in the year, 2006 is perused vis-à-vis policy of regularization framed in the year, 1997, not much advantage can be taken by the Respondent-Corporation because in both the policies, though cut-off dates may be different, but admittedly, workman after his/her having completed eight years service was entitled to be regularized. 12. If policy of regularization framed in the year, 2006 is perused vis-à-vis policy of regularization framed in the year, 1997, not much advantage can be taken by the Respondent-Corporation because in both the policies, though cut-off dates may be different, but admittedly, workman after his/her having completed eight years service was entitled to be regularized. 12. Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2415 of 2012, titled Mathu Ram vs. Municipal Corporation and others, decided vide judgment dated 31.07.2014, has already held that the mere fact that there was a time gap in issuance of the policy of regularization, which prescribed different cut off dates, cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of regularization to the petitioner on his/her completion of 8 years of service on daily wage basis in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Rakesh Kumar’s case supra. Needless to say, aforesaid judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mathu Ram’s case supra, has attained finality. Appeal having been filed by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla against the judgment of Division Bench, passed in LPA No.44 of 2015, whereby judgment rendered by learned Single Judge in Mathu Ram’s case was upheld already stands dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court and as such, judgment passed in Mathu Ram’s case is squarely applicable in the present case. 13. Having taken note of aforesaid judgment rendered in Mathu Ram’s case supra, this Court in case titled State of H.P. vs. Naresh Kumar, Review Petition No.1 of 2021, has held as under:- “10. Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.2415 of 2012, titled Mathu Ram vs. Municipal Corporation and others, decided vide judgment dated 31.07.2014, has already held that the mere fact that there was a time gap in issuance of the policy of regularization, which prescribed different cut off dates, cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of regularization to the petitioner on his completion of 8 years of service on daily wage basis in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.2735 of 2010, dated 28.07.2010, titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others. Para-5 of Mathu Ram (supra) is reproduced herein below: “5. It cannot be disputed that the policy of regularization has been extended from time to time. Para-5 of Mathu Ram (supra) is reproduced herein below: “5. It cannot be disputed that the policy of regularization 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 petitioner on his completion of 8 years of service on daily waged basis in terms of Rakesh Kumar (supra)..” 11. Reliance is also placed to the judgment dated 12.03.2020, passed by this Court in CWP No.4482 of 2019, titled State of H.P. & Anr. vs. Rajinder Kumar, wherein, this Court held as under: “10. The net result is that once the Government itself has framed policy of regularization and the same is extended from time to time, then the mere fact that there was a time gap in issuance of the policy of regularization, which prescribed different cut off dates, cannot be a ground to deny the benefits of regularization to workmen on its completion of the requisite length of service.” 12. It has been also held by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.6912 of 2021, titled State of H.P.& ors. vs. Swaran Rekha, wherein this court held as under:- “11. Yet another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court relied upon by the Tribunal was delivered in LPA No.44 of 2015, titled Municipal Corporation Shimla and others Versus Mathu Ram, decided on 13.10.2015, facts of which case are somewhat identical to the present case. In that case, respondent was appointed in November, 1993. He completed service of eight years in 2001. In the present case also, respondent-original applicant was appointed on 16.08.1993 and completed service of eight years on 16.08.2001. The employee concerned in that case was claiming that he was required to be regularized immediately on completion of eight years’ service. The appellant-Corporation, however, resisted the claim. It was held by this Court that practice of the respondent Corporation in not regularizing the service of the workmen even though they have completed eight years of service, amounts to unfair labour practice. It 8 may be noted that this judgment was also subject to challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.1708 of 2016 and was upheld.” 14. It 8 may be noted that this judgment was also subject to challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.1708 of 2016 and was upheld.” 14. Since in the case at hand, petitioner had completed eight years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year in the year, 1998, his services ought to have been regularized w.e.f. 1.1.1999 in terms of policy of regularization. Hence, order dated 2.12.2020, whereby services of the petitioner came to be regularized w.e.f. 20.9.2007, needs to be modified to the extent that the service of the petitioner be regularized after completion of eight years w.e.f. 1.1.1999 with all consequential benefits. 15. Plea of delay and laches attempted to be raised by learned counsel for the Corporation to defeat the claim of the petitioner is also not available on account of the fact that since years 1998 and 1999, petitioner had been constantly raising his dispute with regard to conferment of work charge status as well as regularization w.e.f. 1.1.1999, but, on one pretext or the other, aforesaid prayer made by the petitioner was rejected. Since, the petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim since the year 1997, prayer made in the instant petition for ordering regularization w.e.f. 1.1.1999 cannot be allowed to be defeated on the ground of delay and laches. Otherwise also, on account of wrongful denial of regularization from the due date i.e. 1.1.1999, huge financial loss is being caused to the petitioner and as such, plea of delay and laches is otherwise not tenable. 16. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law taken into consideration, present petition is allowed and order dated 2.12.2020 is modified to the extent that respondents are directed to regularize the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1999 alongwith all the consequential benefits. Present petition is disposed of with pending applications, if any.