JUDGMENT : (Sandeep Sharma, J. ) Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both the above captioned cases and petitioners herein have prayed for similar reliefs, this court heard them together and now same are being disposed of vide common judgment. 2. Precisely, the facts of the cases, as emerge from the record, are that petitioners herein are employees of respondent No.3- Nagar Panchayat Gagret and Nagar Parishad Daulatpur Chowk, respectively. It is not in dispute that petitioner namely Ashok Kumar was engaged on contract basis as Tractor Operator by respondent No.3 on 14.8.2002, whereas petitioners namely Naresh Kumar and Shamsher Singh were appointed as Work Supervisor and Tractor Driver on contract basis on 3.1.2000 and 1.1.2000, respectively in Nagar Parishad Daulatpur. Since despite there being policy of regularization framed by Government of Himachal Pradesh for regularising, service of those contractual employees, who had rendered eight years continuous service on daily wage basis, services of the petitioners were not regularised, petitioners in both the cases are compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for reliefs, which are common in both the cases. For the sake of brevity, relief, as prayed for, in the CWP No.117 of 2023 are reproduced herein below: “i. That appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on and with effect from August, 2010 i.e. on completion of 8 years of contract service with all consequential benefits of pay, arrear, seniority etc., as the similarly situated persons have also been regularized with a retrospective date on completion of 8 years of contract period service, in the interest of law and justice.” 3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply in CWP No. 117 of 2023, wherein facts as have been noticed herein above, have not been disputed, rather stand admitted. An attempt has been made by the respondents to refute the claim of the petitioners on the ground of delay and laches. It is averred in the reply that since petitioners remained silent for nine years, they cannot be granted reliefs, as prayed for, in the instant petitions at this belated stage. An attempt has been made by the respondents to refute the claim of the petitioners on the ground of delay and laches. It is averred in the reply that since petitioners remained silent for nine years, they cannot be granted reliefs, as prayed for, in the instant petitions at this belated stage. It is further averred in the reply that as and when posts became available, petitioners herein were regularised and as such, no prejudice, if any, can be said to have been caused to the petitioners. 4. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while making this Court peruse reply filed by respondents No. 1 & 2, vehemently argued that petitioners herein cannot claim regularization from the date they had completed eight years of service on contract basis because at the relevant time, no sanctioned posts were available. While referring to the policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time, Mr. Panwar, argued that as per afore policy though an employee is entitled to be regularized after his/her having completed eight years of service, but against available vacancy. He further submitted that since vacancies became available at a later stage qua which petitioners were subsequently regularized, they were rightly granted benefit of regularization from that date only. While referring to the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.10747 of 2012-E , titled Ashwani Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. , which has been otherwise pressed into service by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Panwar, submitted that in afore case, proposal to sanction post against which services of the petitioners in that could be regularized, stood initiated in the relevant year, however, in the instant case, no such proposal was ever initiated and posts against which, subsequently, petitioners came to be regularized, became available in the year 2013 only. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, in both the cases, also adopted the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General. 6. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, while making this court peruse judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ashwani Kumar (supra), submitted that in afore case, State of Himachal Pradesh had sought information from all Executive Officers/Secretaries/Municipal Councils and Secretaries of Himachal Pradesh on 22.8.2008, regarding daily wages/contract workers as on 20.8.2008. 6. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, while making this court peruse judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ashwani Kumar (supra), submitted that in afore case, State of Himachal Pradesh had sought information from all Executive Officers/Secretaries/Municipal Councils and Secretaries of Himachal Pradesh on 22.8.2008, regarding daily wages/contract workers as on 20.8.2008. Though in aforesaid case, requisite information was duly supplied by the respective councils and Nagar Panchayats, but since no steps were being taken for creation of posts ,against which contractual employee, could be regularized vide aforesaid judgment, Coordinate Bench of this Court ordered that in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, an employee after eight years of contract service is required to be regularized from due date and in no circumstance, regularization can be delayed for want of creation of vacancies, which is otherwise required to be created by the department. He also invited attention of this Court to recent judgment dated 20.3.2025, rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 3060 of 2020 titled Santosh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. , wherein, in similar facts and circumstances, direction came to be issued to government to regularize the petitioners from the date they completed eight years of service on contract or daily wage basis. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that there is no dispute between parties that petitioners in both the cases, while rendering their services in respondent No.3-Nagar Panchayat/Nagar Parishad, have completed more than eight years of service in the years 2010 and 2009, respectively. Similarly, it is not in dispute that as per policy of regularization farmed by Government of Himachal Pradesh, an employee after requisite number of years of contract service is entitled for regularization against available vacancy. In the instant case, though petitioners had become eligible for regularization in the years 2010 and 2009, respectively, but ultimately, they were granted benefit of regularization in terms of policy of regularization framed by the government, w.e.f. July 2013. 8. In the instant case, though petitioners had become eligible for regularization in the years 2010 and 2009, respectively, but ultimately, they were granted benefit of regularization in terms of policy of regularization framed by the government, w.e.f. July 2013. 8. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petitions and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners were required to be given benefit of regularization after eight years of contract service, which they had completed in the year 2010/2009. As per reply filed by the respondents, though petitioners had completed eight years of service in the year 2010/2009, but since in those respective years, posts were not available, they could not be regularized. 9. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ashwani Kumar (supra), wherein in similar facts and circumstances, petitioner namely Ashwani Kumar, who was an employee of Nagar Panchayat, Mehatpur District Una, Himachal Pradesh, approached this Court, seeking direction to respondents to regularize him from the date he completed eight years of service on daily wage/contract basis. In the afore case, Coordinate Bench of this Court came to be apprised that respondent No.2 sought information from all Executive Officers/ Secretaries/ Municipal Councils/ Nagar Panchayats of Himachal Pradesh on 22.8.2008, regarding daily wage contract workers as on 20.8.2008. Aforesaid information was actually called for regularization of all such employees working in Municipal Councils/Nagar Panchayats etc., after eight years of contract service. Having taken note of the aforesaid communication, coordinate Bench of this Court called upon the Nagar Panchayats to specifically give details of daily waged /contract employees, whose cases were under consideration with the government for creation of additional posts/relaxation in educational qualification. Nagar Panchayats were also directed to intimate whether additional liability on account of regularization of daily waged/contract employees will be met by the Panchayats. Secretary, Nagar Panchayat, Mehatpur sent information to respondent No.2 on 1.6.2012 undertaking therein that Nagar Panchayat, Mehatpur was able to meet the additional financial liability etc., but yet no steps were taken for regularization of Ashwani Kumar and as such, he approached the writ court by way of writ petition, detailed herein above. Secretary, Nagar Panchayat, Mehatpur sent information to respondent No.2 on 1.6.2012 undertaking therein that Nagar Panchayat, Mehatpur was able to meet the additional financial liability etc., but yet no steps were taken for regularization of Ashwani Kumar and as such, he approached the writ court by way of writ petition, detailed herein above. Coordinate Bench of this Court having taken note of the fact that relevant information with regard to number of employees as well as details of years of service rendered by them, stand sent to the government, allowed the writ petition, thereby issuing direction to respondent Council to regularise the service of the petitioner from the date he had completed eight years of service, after creating posts. Most importantly, in the aforesaid judgment, it came to be ruled that according to policies framed by the State Government from time to time, the workmen who have completed eight years of service are bound to be regularized. Non-regularization of the petitioner will definitely amount to unfair labour practice. While observing that respondent-State is a welfare State, Coordinate Bench of this Court observed that State should have been alive to its responsibility for taking steps for regularization of workmen who have completed more than eight years of service. Relevant paras No. 2 and 3 of the aforesaid judgment read as under: “2. According to the policies framed by the State Government from time to time, the workmen who have completed 8 years of service are bound to be regularized. Non-regularization of petitioner will definitely amount to unfair labour practice. Respondent-State is a welfare State and should have been alive to its responsibility for taking steps for regularization of workman who has completed more than 8 years of service. 3. Accordingly, in view of analysis and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to regularize the services of the petitioners as Driver, after creating post, immediately after the completion of eight years by the petitioner with all the consequential benefits. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.” 10. 3. Accordingly, in view of analysis and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to regularize the services of the petitioners as Driver, after creating post, immediately after the completion of eight years by the petitioner with all the consequential benefits. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.” 10. While placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, Coordinate Bench of this Court in another case i.e. Santosh Kumar (supra), negated the defence put forth by the respondent in that case that services of the petitioner could not be regularized before 2012 as there was no post available for the purpose and it was only on creation of the post that the benefit of regularization was granted to the petitioner in that case. Coordinate Bench further observed that no explanation has been rendered by respondents No. 1 and 2 as to why undue delay was caused in creation of post. It has also not been shown as to what prevented respondent No.1 from creating the post with promptitude. Relevant paras No. 12 to 15 of the aforesaid judgment read as under: “12. The respondents have simply come up with the defence that since there was no post of driver in the establishment of respondent No.3, the benefit of regularization could not be granted to the petitioner till the post was created. No explanation has been rendered by respondents No. 1 and 2 as to why undue delay was caused in creation of post. It has also not been shown as to what impediment, if any, prevented respondent No.1 from creating the post with promptitude. Admittedly, respondent No.3 had given its consent and requirement for the post of driver and had also undertaken to bear the financial burden. That being so, the action of respondent No.1 in not creating the post of driver in respondent No.3, for such a long period, is highly unjustified. 13. Further, the respondents have not rendered any explanation as how the case of petitioner was different from the case of Ashwani Kumar in CWP No. 10747 of 2012, where the respondents had regularised the service of said incumbent from retrospective effect. The respondents cannot apply different standards for different persons, though identically placed. 14. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for unjustified inaction of the respondents. The respondents cannot apply different standards for different persons, though identically placed. 14. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for unjustified inaction of the respondents. He is entitled to the same treatment as has been granted to above referred Ashwani Kumar. Clearly there was no impediment for the respondent No.1 to create the post of driver in the establishment of 3rd respondent, which eventually was done belatedly. 15. The indulgence of Government in a Welfare State in exploitative tactics cannot be countenanced as such action smears of arbitrariness and thus antithetical to the Constitutional guarantee ensured by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” 11. Once policy of regularization is framed, specifically providing therein that an employee working on contract or daily wages, shall be entitled for regularization after his/her having completed eight years of service, steps, if any, for creation of posts are to be taken by State and delay, if any, caused in that regard by the State, cannot be a reason to deny regularization to an employee after completion of eight years of service on contract or daily wage basis. Since steps, if any, for creation of post are to be taken by State and not by concerned employee, who is only seeking regularization in terms of policy, which otherwise enables him to seek regularization after his/her having completed eight years of service on contract or daily wage, respondents cannot be permitted to defeat the rightful claim of the petitioners on the ground of non-availability of posts. 12. At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General sought dismissal of the petition on the ground of delay and laches. He submitted that since petitioners remained silent for so many years, they being fence-sitters are not entitled to rake up this issue at this stage, however this Court is not impressed with this submission for the reason that once policy of regularization has been framed by Government of Himachal Pradesh, steps, if any, for regularization of an employee after his/her having completed eight years of service are required to be taken by the department and employee has no role in the matter. Since it is quite apparent from the judgment passed in Ashwani Kumar (supra) that though all Nagar Parishads and Councils had made available data with regard to employees eligible for regularization in terms of policy of regularization, but yet no steps if any, were taken by concerned departments for creation of posts against which petitioners as well as other similarly situate persons could be regularized. Moreover, petitioners herein suffered continuously on account of delay in their regularization. Learned Additional Advocate General has not been able to dispute that judgment passed in Ashwani Kumar (supra) has been implemented. If it is so, petitioners being similarly situate, deserve similar treatment 13. True it is that the petitioners are seeking regularisation of their services from the year 2009/2010 and present petitions have been filed in the years 2019/2023, i.e. after around ten years or more of date of accrual of cause of action, but having taken note of the fact that the cause of action in the present cases is a recurring one, delay and laches may not come in the way of the petitioners, while seeking redressal of a recurring cause of action. In this regard, reliance may be placed on judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India & Ors v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 , wherein it has been held as under: "7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re- fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition." 14. Perusal of above decisions shows that in the matters of recurring cause of action, delay and laches or limitation will not thwart the claim so long as the claim subsists. In the case at hand, the petitioner is suffering recurring losses thus, keeping in view his status and plight, it would be better and just to ignore the delay in filing the petition at hand. Similar observation has been made by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Yashwant Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh , CWPOA No. 46 of 2020 , decided on 22.4.2021, wherein it has been held that where the Court is dealing with one of fundamental rights of poor workman, its role is that of a sentinel for protection of fundamental rights of the weak and down-trodden and cannot, therefore, easily allow itself to be persuaded to refuse the reliefs solely on jejune ground of delay and laches. 15. In view of above position of law, delay and laches in the present cases may not be a bar for this court to grant them reliefs claimed by them, since the cause of action in these cases being recurring cause of action. 16. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the aforesaid petitions and same are allowed. 16. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the aforesaid petitions and same are allowed. Respondent No.3 is directed to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date they completed eight years service as per policy of regularization and grant them all consequential benefits including the monetary benefits, seniority and promotion etc. However it is clarified that arrears on account of financial benefits shall be restricted to three years prior to date of filing of the afore petitions. In the aforesaid terms, present petitions are disposed alongwith pending applications, if any.