JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, Judge Since common question is involved and prayer(s) are identical, therefore, with the consent of parties, both these cases are taken up for adjudication and disposal together at this stage, in the interests of justice and case of Dhian Singh is treated as lead case. 2. Petitioners, Dhian Singh and Kushla, initially filed Original Application No.6686 of 2016 before State Administrative Tribunal and after abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court as CWPOA No.724 of 2020, wherein, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:- “7(i) That the respondents be directed to grant regularization of the service to the applicant after completion of 8 years of service i.e. w.e.f. 01-05-1999 or 31-03-2000 with all consequential benefits including seniority, continuity, annual increments, earned leave and all other consequential benefits including arrears accruing thereon on this account. 7(ii) That the respondents be directed to retire the applicants after completing 60 years of service i.e. w.e.f. 31-10-2019 and 30-06-2022 instead of 31-10-2017 and 30-06-2020 and the applicant be paid all consequential benefits; 7(iii) That the respondents may further be restrained from retiring the applicant prematurely and allow the applicants to work till attaining the age of 60 years as per Annexure A-6 & A-7. 7(iv) That the respondent may be directed to grant work-charge status to the applicants after 8 years of service i.e. w.e.f. 01-05-1999 with all consequential benefits including seniority, continuity, annual increments, earned leave and all other consequential benefits including arrears accruing thereon on this account.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 3. First grievance of petitioners, Dhian Chand and Kushla is that they were engaged as Beldar in the Office of Forest Range Officer, in Pangi Forest Division at Killar in District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, which is a tribal area in 1991 and petitioners have rendered 8 years of continuous daily wage service with 160 days in each calendar year [prescribed for tribal areas] and based on continuous service, petitioners were regularized as Forest Worker on 15.03.2008 [in case of both the petitioners] w.e.f. 11.10.2007 [Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2]. Despite having been regularized, the claim of petitioners is for work charge status from the date they complete 8 years of continuous daily wage service. Despite having been regularized, the claim of petitioners is for work charge status from the date they complete 8 years of continuous daily wage service. Petitioner No.1 has placed on record Mandays Chart [Annexure A-3], which shows that he was engaged on daily wage service in 1995 and after completing required Mandays of 160 days in tribal areas, petitioner No.1 completed 8 years of continuous daily wage service as on 31.12.2002 and became eligible for conferment of work charge status from the date he completes 8 years of continuous daily wage service. So far as petitioner No.2-Kushla, she was engaged on daily wage service 1994 and as per Mandays Chart [Annexure A-4], she completed 8 years of continuous service on 31.12.2001 and became eligible for grant of work charge status from 01.01.2002. For asserting the claim for conferment of work charge status, petitioners have placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Rakesh Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters [CWP No.2735 of 2010] [Annexure A-5] and judgment in the case of The State of Himachal Pradesh & others Versus Kartar Singh [LPA No.212 of 2015 [Annexure A-11] by asserting the claim on the basis of policy dated 06.05.2000 [Annexure A-12]. In this background, petitioners have claimed the grant of work charge status from the date they complete 8 years of continuous daily wage service of 160 days [as is prescribed in tribal areas] with all consequential benefits, like pay fixation, seniority etc. 3(i). Second grievance of the petitioners is that they retired from Government Service on attaining the age of 58 years as on 31.10.2017 and 30.06.2020,whereas, petitioners were entitled for continuity in service upto the age of 60 years i.e. till 30.10.2019 and 30.06.2022 in view of the fact that petitioners having been engaged as daily wager prior to 10.05.2001 had a right to continue in service till the age of superannuation of 60 years. It is in this background that benefit of service for 2 years from 58 to 60 years with admissible service benefit have been prayed for by the petitioners in the instant case. STAND OF RESPONDENTS IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT: 4. Pursuant to issuance of notice, State Authorities have filed Reply-Affidavit of Conservator of Forests [T], Chamba, dated 30.05.2017. 4(i). It is in this background that benefit of service for 2 years from 58 to 60 years with admissible service benefit have been prayed for by the petitioners in the instant case. STAND OF RESPONDENTS IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT: 4. Pursuant to issuance of notice, State Authorities have filed Reply-Affidavit of Conservator of Forests [T], Chamba, dated 30.05.2017. 4(i). Perusal of Reply-Affidavit indicates that the stand of petitioners that they were engaged as daily wagers from 01.05.1991 is disputed and denied. Respondents have stated that petitioner No.1 was engaged as daily wager in 1995 and he continued to serve the Department till his regularization on 15.03.2008 w.e.f. 11.10.2007. Mandays Chart [Annexure R-I] has been placed on record to verify continuous daily wage service with 160 days in each calendar year in tribal areas rendered by petitioner No.1 from 1995. Likewise, as regards petitioner No.2 [Kushla], the respondents have placed on record Mandays Chart [Annexure R-II] which indicates that petitioner No.2 had joined service in 1994 and she served the Department continuously with more than 160 days required service for tribal areas till 2006 and she was regularized on 15.03.2018 w.e.f. 11.10.2007 [Annexure A-2]. 4(ii). Reply-Affidavit states that petitioners are not entitled for work charge status after completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service as the Respondent-Forest Department does not have a work charge establishment in terms of the Government decision dated 24.09.2015 [Annexure R-III]. In this background, claim for work charge status was opposed by the State Authorities. 4(iii). So far as second grievance with respect to continuity in service beyond 58 years to 60 years is concerned, State Authorities have stated that the petitioners were regularized by the respondents on 15.03.2018 [Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2/ and, therefore, the petitioners are to retire at the age of 58 years and not at the age of 60 years. It is in this background that prayer for continuity upto 60 years has been denied by the State Authorities. 5. Heard, Mr. D.K. Khanna, Learned Counsel, for the petitioners and Mr. Navlesh Verma, Learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents. 6. It is in this background that prayer for continuity upto 60 years has been denied by the State Authorities. 5. Heard, Mr. D.K. Khanna, Learned Counsel, for the petitioners and Mr. Navlesh Verma, Learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents. 6. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that petitioners are entitled for both the reliefs, firstly, the work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service [in case of petitioner No.1 w.e.f. 01.01.2003 and in case of petitioner No.2 w.e.f. 01.01.2002] and the petitioners are entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years [i.e. upto 30.12.2019, in case of petitioner No.1 and upto 30.06.2022, in case of petitioner No.2], for the following reasons:- 6(i). Firstly, the stand of the State Authorities that Forest Department does not have a work charge establishment as per decision dated 24.09.2015 [Annexure R-III] cannot be taken as a ground to deprive the work charge status to the petitioners, for the reason, that decision dated 24.09.2015 [Annexure R- III] cannot apply retrospectively. 6(ii). Secondly, decision dated 24.09.2015 [Annexure R-III] cannot form the basis for depriving the petitioners of their legal entitlement of work charge status which had accrued in case of petitioner No.1 w.e.f. 01.01.2003 and in case of petitioner No.2 w.e.f.01.01.2002 in terms of the mandate of a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, in case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus Ashwani Kumar and the aforesaid judgment was assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus Ashwani Kumar , [Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019], whereby, the judgment passed by this Court was upheld on the issue of grant of work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service and the aforesaid judgment stands reinforced in the case State of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani and Another [Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 and other connected matters, decided on 06.02.2025. 6(iii). 6(iii). Thirdly, while negating the stand based on Government decision dated 24.09.2015 [Annexure R-III], this Court has negated the stand of the State Authorities while adjudicating CWPOA No.6809 of 2020, In Re; Nand Lal Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided on 02.11.2023, in the following terms:- “DENIAL OF WORK CHARGE STATUS BASED ON COMMUNICATION DATED 24.09.2015 (ANNEXURE R-III) - UNTENABLE 6(viii) In addition to above, the claim of petitioner for conferment of Work Charge Status from the date of completion of eight years continuous service w.e.f. 01.01.2001 has merit, in view of judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in CWPOA No. 6807 of 2020, titled as Devi Singh versus. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 07.10.2023, directing the State Authorities-Respondents to confer grant work charge status to a daily wager of the same forest division from the date he completed eight years of daily wage service w.e.f. 01.02.2001, with all consequential benefits in the following terms:- “Petitioner herein, who was engaged as a causal labourer at Pangi Forest Division in the year 1994, though had completed more than eight years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year in the year 2001, but his services were regularized in the Forests Department vide DFO letter No. 2283, dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure A-1), against the post of Forest Worker. Since number of juniors of petitioner as detailedin para 3 of the petition were regularized alongwith the petitioner, he repeatedly requested respondents to regularize his services from the date he completed his 8 years service after the date of his initial appointment. As per petitioner, he was required to be regularized against the post in question with effect from 1.9.2001 on the basis of judgment passed by this court in Rakesh Kumar v. State of HP and Ors, CWP No. 2735 of 2010, wherein it came to be observed that there is obligation cast upon department to consider regularization of daily wage workers as per policy, as per which, the Department is bound to confer work charge status upon the daily wage workers satisfying the required condition of daily wage services. Since the petitioner was not granted work charge status after his having completed 8 years of service and he was regularized with effect from 10.10.2007, he approached erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 1901 of 2019, which now on account of abolishment of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal has been transferred to this Court and re- registered as CWPOA No. 6807 of 2020, praying therein for issuing a direction to the respondents for conferment of work charge status with effect from 1.9.2001. 2. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply, wherein facts as have been taken note herein above, have not been disputed rather stand admitted. It has been stated in the reply that the petitioner was engaged as casual labourer in the year 1994 but his services were rightly regularized against the post of Forest Worker with effect from 10.10.2007. It has been further averred in the reply that the prayer made by the petitioner for conferment of work charge status cannot be accepted for the reason that there is no work charge establishment in the Forests Department and concept of work charge status is different from that permanent establishment of Government Departments. It has been further stated by the respondents that the services of the petitioner were regularized in terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhayaya, wherein, in terms of judgment, daily wagers could only be regularized after his/her having completed 10 years daily wage services with 240 days in each calendar year. Respondents have stated in the reply that wages and allowance of work charged employees used to be charged in the Public Works Department and Irrigation and Public Health Department and persons were granted benefit of aforesaid decision of Government because the departments had work charge establishment whereas there is no work charge establishment in the Forests Department and there is no occasion to grant work charge status to the petitioner from the date he completed 8 years daily wage service. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. this court finds that the prayer made by petitioner for conferment of work charge status from date of completion of 8 years has been rejected on the ground that there is no work charge establishment in the Forests Department. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. this court finds that the prayer made by petitioner for conferment of work charge status from date of completion of 8 years has been rejected on the ground that there is no work charge establishment in the Forests Department. However, material available on record clearly reveals that the respondent granted similar benefits to other persons namely Dhani Ram and Narayan Dass, on the basis of direction issued by this court in CWP Nos. 4094 of 2010 and 4095 of 2010 dated 27.7.2010, whereby direction was issued to consider representations of petitioner within ten weeks in terms of Mool Raj Upadhayaya v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Gauri Dutt v. State of Himachal Pradesh. 6. Since in the case of Reema Devi supra, similar plea was set up by the respondents to defeat the claim of late Het Ram, that there is no work charge establishment in the Forests Department and this court having taken note of various judgments passed by this court, held Het Ram entitled for grant of work charge status from date of completion of 8 years of service. 8. In CWP No. 3111 of 2016, titled State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ashwani Kumar, which was further upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court, this court categorically ruled that cessation of work charge establishment if any, has to do nothing with conferment of work charge status and work charge establishment is not a prerequisite for conferment of work charge status. Aforesaid view taken by this court in Ashwani Kumar, passed by Division Bench was further upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court. 9. Recently, Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.165 of 2021, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Others vs. Surajmani and Another, decided on 12.1.2023, alongwith connected matters, has held as under: “57 In view of the above, the writ petitions filed by the employees are allowed and the respondents are directed to grant work charge status to the employees from the date they had completed eight years of service on daily wage basis in terms of the decision given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar’s case supra. However, benefits consequent to conferment of work charge status in terms of instant judgment shall be restricted to three years for the period prior to filing of petition.” 10. However, benefits consequent to conferment of work charge status in terms of instant judgment shall be restricted to three years for the period prior to filing of petition.” 10. Judgment of this court in Reema Devi was laid challenge by way of LPA No. 160 of 2021, before Division Bench of this court, but same was dismissed as a result of which mandate contained in Reema Devi has attained finality. 11. During the course of arguments, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General placed heavy reliance upon communication dated 24.9.2015 Annexure R-III issued by Additional Secretary (Forests) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to state that in terms of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaswant Singh and others v. Union of India and others, (1979) 4 SCC 440 , Forests Department is not a work charge establishment but such plea of him deserve outright rejection in view of categorical finding returned by Division Bench in LPA No. 160 of 2021 in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Reema Devi, wherein it has been held as under: “6. Late Shri Het Ram, husband of respondent herein was engaged as daily wage Class-IV employee in the Forest Division Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., in 1994. His services were regularized w.e.f. 11.09.2007. Late Shri Het Ram, by way of CWP No.980/2013, approached this Court for relief of grant of work charge status in his favour from the date he had completed eight years of daily wage service. CWP No. 980 of 2013 was decided by this Court on 04.03.2013 with a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of judgment passed by this Court in Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others, CWP No.2735 of 2010. Vide order dated 17.11.2015, the Divisional Forest Officer, Karsog Forest Division, rejected the case of late Shri Het Ram in following terms:- “Whereas, Government of Himachal Pradesh vide its letter No. Fin (Pen) A (3) dated 18/2010 dated 10.07.2015 asked the Pr. Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF), HP to determine “whether HP Forest Department has work charge establishment or not.” Whereas, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF), HP Shimla-1 constituted a committee vide office order No.605/2015(EIII) dated 3.9.2015 to deliberate and determine “Whether HP Forest Department is a work charge establishment in terms of Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment inJaswant Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1979) 4 SCC 440 p 456 or not?” The Committee after due diligence and deliberations submitted its report with the recommendation that “The HP Forest Department is not a work charged establishment” and the Govt. of HP has accepted and ratified the recommendations of the committee as conveyed by Addl. Chief Secretary (Forests) to the Govt. of HP vide letter No. FFE-A (B) 17-37/2015 dated 24.09.2015. Now therefore, taking into consideration that the Forests Department is not a work charged establishment, the claim of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status on completion of 8 years of service, in terms of Hon'ble High Court order dated 28.07.2010 passed in CWP No. 2735/ 2010- titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of HP & Ors., which has been relief upon by the Hon’ble HP High Court in its judgment dated 4.3.2013 in CWP No. 980/2013- titled as Het Ram Vs State of HP & Ors is hereby considered and rejected because the regularization policy of the Govt. dated 3.4.200 and 6.5.2000 nor the judgment of Hon'ble HP High Court dated 28.07.2010 in CWP No.2735 of 2010-titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of HP is applicable in this particular case to the extent of grant of work charge status. Accordingly claim is disposed of as not admitted.” Thus, the Divisional Forest Officer, Karsog Forest Division, had rested his decision on the report of an internal committee of appellants' department declaring that H.P. Forests Department was not a work charge establishment. Shri Het Ram had died on 24.03.2014 i.e. before the passing of the aforesaid rejection order dated 17.11.2015. 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. 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 prerequisite 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 prerequisite for conferment of work charge status.” 12. Hence, the Division Bench of this Court while deciding Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) had held that the work charge establishment is not a prerequisite for conferment of work charge status.” 12. Consequently in view of detailed discussion made supra and law taken into consideration, this court finds merit in the petition and accordingly same is allowed and respondents are directed to grant work charge status to the petitioner from the date he completed 8 years of daily wage services, 1.9.2001 alongwith all consequential benefits.” 6(iv). Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Nand Lal [supra], stands implemented by the respondents-Chief Conservator of Forests, Chamba, as per communication dated 24.07.2025 [Taken on Record], whereby, the work charge status has been granted to aforesaid Nand Lal from the date of completion of8 years of continuous daily wage service “notionally”with all admissible benefits. 6(v). Fourthly, once the stand of the State contained in decision dated 24.09.2015 [Annexure R-3] was disapproved by this Court in the case of Nand Lal [supra] and the judgment stands implemented on 24.07.2025, therefore, this Court sees no reason, as to why petitioners who are similarly placed and were serving in the tribal areas under the same Forest Department be not extended the same benefit. Not-extending the similar benefits shall amount to treating “equals to unequal”. Rather the denial of benefits shall lead to discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which cannot be permitted to operate as is being pleaded by the State Authorities. 6(vi). Fifthly, the issue regarding conferment of work charge status to daily wagers in all Government Establishments, including Forest Department stands adjudicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani [supra], entitling the daily wagers for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service “notionally”, in the following terms: “5. The workers who had been regularised in service in the Public Health Department under various schemes announced by the State Government from time to time but had not been granted the status of “work-charged” had approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled as Rakesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. which came to be disposed of on 28.07.2010 by opining as under: “6. The simple question is whether the delay defeats justice? Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. which came to be disposed of on 28.07.2010 by opining 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. 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 bound to confer the status, subject to the workmen satisfying the required conditions. 7. In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case(s) of the petitioners herein for conferment of workcharged status, subject to their eligibility in terms of the policy dated 3.4.2000 and as explained in 6.5.2000 policy, as extracted above. Needful in this regard shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment by the respective petitioners. Needless to say that the question of conferment of work charged status does not arise in case the establishment ceases to be a work charged establishment and hence, the conferment of the status will not arise after the abolition of the work-charged status of the establishment.” 6. The aforesaid order came to be affirmed by this Court in Special leave Petition (Civil) No. 33570 of 2010 and all connected matters were disposed of on 15.01.2015. Later, certain workers who had been engaged on daily wage basis in Public Works Department of Himachal Pradesh, after having completed eight years of continuous service prayed for conferment of work-charged status by filing O.A. No. 412 of 2016 before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. Their prayer was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.06.2016. Upon challenging the same by the State in Civil Writ Petition No. 3111 of 2016 titled as State of H.P. and Ors. Vs. Sh. Their prayer was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.06.2016. Upon challenging the same by the State in Civil Writ Petition No. 3111 of 2016 titled as State of H.P. and Ors. Vs. Sh. Ashwani Kumar the High Court, relying upon its judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 4489 of 2009 titled as Ravi Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Ors., decided on 14.12.2009, maintained the order of the Tribunal. The order of the High Court in Ashwani Kumar (Supra) has also been affirmed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019 titled as State of H.P. and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar by order dated 22.07.2019, wherein this Court observed as under: “3. We are not disturbing the finding of the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court, with respect to the conferral of the status of the work charge from 01.01.2003. However, as regularization has been made only in the year 2006, obviously, notional benefit could have to be granted as the petition was initially filed in the year 2013. 4. Thus, we make the modification that the respondent would be entitled only for notional benefits of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, with the aforesaid modification in the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, the appeal is disposed of.” 7. In this factual scenario, when we consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it would not detain us for too long to brush aside the contention of the learned senior counsel and learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh. Inasmuch as the issue involved in these appeals has been laid to rest by this Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (Supra). That apart, this Court, while examining a similar plea in Ashwani Kumar’s (Supra) case in Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019 disposed of on 22.07.2019, has specifically addressed this issue by arriving at a conclusion that the order of the Tribunal directing conferment of ‘work charge status’ on completion of eight (08) years of service, did not suffer from any infirmity and it was reiterated order of the Tribunal was just and proper. 8. 8. However, in order to allay the apprehension of the State as expressed thereunder and to safeguard the interest of the State which otherwise would have burdened the exchequer with extra benefits being conferred on the employees who had not been regularly appointed, this Court has, as a succor to the State, restricted the claim or, in other words, modified the order of the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court by arriving at a conclusion that the petitioners/appellants therein would be entitled to the notional benefits of the order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly disposed of the said appeal. 9. It would not be out of context to refer at this juncture itself that the State, in its wisdom, having felt that the subsequent schemes having been formulated and implemented, would alter the situation and, therefore, order dated 12.04.1994 passed in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s (Supra) case has to be modified, had approached this Court by filing an Interlocutory Application being IA No. 3 in the year 2005 in the aforesaid Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case, i.e., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 787 of 1987. A perusal of the said application and the averments made thereunder would clearly indicate that the very same contentions urged, pleas advanced and arguments put forth today before us were the ones which were urged/raised in the said application. Though Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel appearing for the State would fairly submit that the said application was withdrawn on the ground of subsequent schemes having been formulated and implemented by the State of Himachal Pradesh, but we are unable to accept the said proposition howsoever attractive it may be, for the simple reason that the said application was dismissed simpliciter as withdrawn. Yet another factor which sways our mind to reject the contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the State would be the fact that the State having accepted the judgment of Ashwani Kumar (Supra), has implemented the same and it is in this background, the High Court in the impugned order has observed that the State cannot adopt pick and choose policy. 10. 10. For the cumulative reasons aforestated, we are of the considered view that the dicta laid down by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2019 in Ashwani Kumar’s (Supra) case which is based on the judgment of Mool Raj Upadhyaya(Supra) holds the field and would also be applicable to the Respondents herein who had approached the Tribunal or the High Court seeking similar relief. As such, the Respondents shall be entitled for grant of ‘work-charged’ status from the date of completion of 8 years of service. However, we hold that the relief in the present appeals will be limited to notional benefits as explained in paragraph 3 and 4 of Ashwani Kumar’s (Supra) case in Civil Appeal No(s). 5753 of 2019 and the present appeals stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. 11. We also make it explicitly clear that the State in its endeavour of implementing the orders of the Tribunal, High Court or this Court, if having paid the amounts in excess, would be at liberty to take such steps as it deems fit without insisting for one time recovery. 12. It is further underscored that this judgment would necessarily be a judgment in rem and the State shall hence forth not take recourse to employing personnel as daily wagers but shall make appointments only in accordance with law, as enumerated in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ].” 6(vii). Based on the mandate in the case of Surajmani [supra], once the judgment in Surajmani [supra] is judgment in rem, then, denial of benefits tantamount the restricting, curtailing and denying the legal entitlements in terms of the said judgment. Accordingly, the stand of State Authorities in denying the work charge status is disapproved and rejected. 6(viii). Based on the mandate in the case of Surajmani [supra], once the judgment in Surajmani [supra] is judgment in rem, then, denial of benefits tantamount the restricting, curtailing and denying the legal entitlements in terms of the said judgment. Accordingly, the stand of State Authorities in denying the work charge status is disapproved and rejected. 6(viii). While dealing with the issue of conferment of work charge status in case of daily wagers in Forest Department, the Division Bench of this Court in various judgments in LPA No. 82 of 2025, In Re; State of Himachal Pradesh and others Versus Pritam Chand , decided on 27.08.2025; LPA No. 100 of 2025, In Re; State of Himachal Pradesh and others Versus Layak Ram , decided on 27.08.2025; and LPA No. 231 of 2025, In Re; State of Himachal Pradesh and others Versus Gita Ram Sharma , decided on 27.08.2025, wherein, the benefit of work charge status by the respondent- Forest Department, has been negated on the plea that the work charge establishment did not exist, was disproved by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgments by entitling the daily wagers for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service, though “notionally”. The judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, being a binding precedent, the same is followed/applied mutatis mutandis, in instant case, which relates to the same Department. 7. Now, coming to the second claim with respect to the benefit of enhancement in the age of retirement of the petitioners from 58 years to 60 years and denial thereof needs interdicted, for the following reasons:- 7(i). Firstly, the issue as to whether the daily wagers who were engaged prior to 10.05.2001 were to be retired at the age of 58 years or 60 years stands adjudicated by the Full Bench of this Court in CWP No.2711 of 2017, In Re; Baldev Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith other connected matters, decided on 22.02.2022. 7(ii). Firstly, the issue as to whether the daily wagers who were engaged prior to 10.05.2001 were to be retired at the age of 58 years or 60 years stands adjudicated by the Full Bench of this Court in CWP No.2711 of 2017, In Re; Baldev Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith other connected matters, decided on 22.02.2022. 7(ii). Drawing support from the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court [supra], the daily wagers who were engaged prior to 10.05.2001 have a legal right to continue in service upto the age of 60 years as per the mandate of Full Bench of this Court in CWP No.2711 of 2017, In Re; Baldev Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, decided on 22.02.2022, by placing reliance on the findings in Para 7 (ii) and (iii), in the following terms:- “ii) Inconsistency between Bar Chand and Chuni Lal now stands, not just resolved, but rather dissolved, in view of notification dated 21.02.2018 amending F.R. 56(e), issued by the State, which has now reinforced and reiterated what was held in Bar Chand’s case, i.e. date of regularization of Class IV daily wager whether prior or after 10.05.201, will make no difference to the age of his continuing in service. It is the date of engagement, which is the decisive factor. If date of engagement/appointment is prior to 10.05.2021, the Class-IV employee will continue to serve till 60 years of age. In case, it is later than 10.05.2021, then restriction in age upto 58 years will apply. iii) There cannot be any discrimination amongst similarly situated Class-IV employees belonging to one homogenous class. Therefore the retirement date, of such of those employees, who had been engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2021, but regularized after 10.05.2021 and have actually been retired prior to the issuance of notification dated 21.02.2018 at the age of 58 years, shall be deemed to be the date when they otherwise attained the age of 60 years. Since these employees have not actually worked beyond the age of 58 years, therefore, they will not be entitled to the actual monetary benefits of wages/salary etc. for the period of service from the date of their actual retirement till deemed dates of their retirement. Since these employees have not actually worked beyond the age of 58 years, therefore, they will not be entitled to the actual monetary benefits of wages/salary etc. for the period of service from the date of their actual retirement till deemed dates of their retirement. However, they will be entitled to notional fixation of their pay for the period in question for working out their payable pension and payment of consequential arrears of pension accordingly. For the aforesaid claim, Learned State Counsel is not in a position to dispute the right of the petitioner for continuity in service upto the age of 60 years, in view of the fact that the material on record establishes that the petitioner was engaged and had rendered continuous service from 1999, which is prior to cut-off date i.e. 10.05.2001 and was regularized thereafter. That being so, once the petitioner was daily wager since 1999 prior to 10.05.2001 and was regularized on 23.03.2011, then, in terms of the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Baldev [supra], the petitioner is entitled for continuity in the service upto the age of 60 years instead of 58 years, but since the petitioner has not actually worked from the date of attaining of 58 years on 31.08.2015 upto age of 60 years as 31.08.2017, the petitioner entitled for promotional benefits but the actual benefits, under this head shall accrue from 01.09.2017 with consequential benefits.” The stand of the State Authorities that once the petitioners were regularized on 15.03.2008 w.e.f. 11.10.2007 [Annexure A-1 & Annexure A-2/Annexure R-6 & Annexure R-7] and the petitioners accepted their regularization, then, the petitioners have to retire at the age of 58 years and not 60 years. Scanning of the regularization orders of the petitioners negates the stand of State Authorities, for twin reasons. Firstly, the regularization orders nowhere mandated that the age of retirement shall be 58 years and not 60 years; and secondly, condition No.4 of the regularization orders states that other conditions of service will be governed as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules and Instructions in force from time to time. Firstly, the regularization orders nowhere mandated that the age of retirement shall be 58 years and not 60 years; and secondly, condition No.4 of the regularization orders states that other conditions of service will be governed as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules and Instructions in force from time to time. In this background, once the State Authorities have issued Instructions dated 10.05.2001, which stand negated by the Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Baldev [supra], entitling the daily wagers who are engaged prior to 10.05.2001 [i.e. petitioners No.1 and 2, engaged in 1995 and 1994, respectively], then, such employees alike the petitioners have legal right to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. The date of engagement is determinative of the age of superannuation of a government employee in terms of the mandate of law in the case of Baldev [supra] which stands implemented also. Post its implementation, the finality attached to the judgment in the case of Baldev [supra] cannot be negated by the State Authorities by raising hyper-technical or superfluous pleas when all daily wagers who were engaged before 10.01.2001 and were regularized any time thereafter have a right to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. Accordingly, the petitioners are held entitled to continue in service as Class-IV employees, upto the age of superannuation of 60 years i.e. upto 31.12.2019 [in case of petitioner No.1, Dhian Chand] and upto 30.06.2022 [in case of petitioner No.2, Kushla]. Based on the above discussion, petitioners are held entitled for continuity in service upto the age of 60 years, as referred to above in terms of the mandate of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Baldev [supra]. 9. Based on the above discussion, petitioners are held entitled for continuity in service upto the age of 60 years, as referred to above in terms of the mandate of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Baldev [supra]. 9. Now, coming to the issue of consequential benefits accruing from the grant of work charge status and enhanced age of service upto 60 years, this Court is of the considered view, that so far as conferment of work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service, the petitioners shall be entitled for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service [i.e. in case of petitioner No.1 from 01.01.2003 and in case of petitioner No.2 w.e.f. 01.01.2002] but the relief shall be limited to “notional benefits”, but without any past-arrears; in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani [supra]. 10. Now coming to the second prayer and relief, petitioners stood retired from service on 30.12.2017 [in case of petitioner No.1] and 30.06.2020[in case of petitioner No.2] during the pendency of the instant petition. Based on Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Baldev [supra], the petitioners are held entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years i.e. 31.12.2019 [in case of petitioner No.1] and 30.06.2022 [in case of petitioner No.2], but since the petitioners have not actually worked beyond the age of 58 years, therefore, the petitioners shall be deemed to be in service upto the age of 60 years with all service benefits, including pay fixation, “notionally”, but without any past-arrears. However, it is clarified that based on deemed service upto the age of 60 years, the State Authorities shall grant revised retiral benefits like Pension, Gratuity, Leave Encashment, etc. to the petitioner No.1 w.e.f. 01.01.2020 and to the petitioner No.2 w.e.f. 01.07.2022 with all consequential benefits accruing thereafter. DIRECTIONS: 11. However, it is clarified that based on deemed service upto the age of 60 years, the State Authorities shall grant revised retiral benefits like Pension, Gratuity, Leave Encashment, etc. to the petitioner No.1 w.e.f. 01.01.2020 and to the petitioner No.2 w.e.f. 01.07.2022 with all consequential benefits accruing thereafter. DIRECTIONS: 11. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, instant petition is allowed, in the following terms:- (i) Petitioner No.1 [Dhian Chand] and petitioner No.2 [Kushla] are held entitled for work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2003 and 01.01.2002 from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service [being 160 days service for tribal areas] as per Mandays Charts [Annexure A-1/A-2, Annexure R-6/R-7]; (ii) State Authorities shall grant work charge status from due dates “notionally” in terms of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani [supra] but without any past-arrears; (iii) Petitioners shall be treated to be in deemed service upto 60 years i.e. 31.12.2019 [in case of petitioner No.1-Dhian Chand] and 30.06.2022 [in case of petitioner No.2-Kushla] in terms of Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Baldev [supra]; (iv) Sequel to direction No. (iv) above; petitioners shall be entitled for “notional benefits” beyond the age of 58 years till age of 60 years; but shall be entitled for monetary- consequential benefits; based on revised retiral benefits from date of superannuation at age of 60 years [01.01.2020 and 01.07.2022] with all consequential benefits; (v) Respondents shall release the benefits to the petitioners on or before 31.01.2026, failing which interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be payable; (vi) Directions passed in Lead Case i.e. CWPOA No.724 of 2020, In Re; Dhian Chand and another Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, shall mutatis mutandis apply to petitioner in CWPOA No.1451 of 2020, In Re; Roop Lal Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, subject to verification of continuous daily wage service, in aforesaid terms; and (vii) Costs made easy for respective parties. In aforesaid terms, the instant petitions and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall accordingly stand disposed of.