JUDGMENT : RANJAN SHARMA, J. 1. Petitioner, Ramesh Kumar Thakur, a Junior Engineer, had initially filed CWP No.3342 of 2012 before this Court and on establishment of State Administrative Tribunal, the matter was transferred to the said Tribunal; and now upon its abolition, the same stands re-transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.4065 of 2019, seeking the following relief:- “11(i) That the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date when he completes Eight years of service as daily wager with all consequential benefits.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Case set up by Learned Counsel, is that being eligible for the post of Junior Engineer, the petitioner was engaged as Junior Engineer on daily wage basis in the Respondent-HIMURJA on 01.06.1995. He continued in service and completed 10 years of continuous service with 240 days in each year as on 31.12.2005. It is averred that the State Government issued a Regularization Policy on 09.06.2006 providing for regularization of daily wagers from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous service subject to vacancy. It is averred that in terms of Policy dated 09.06.2006 other daily wagers namely, Gopal Dass and Raj Kumar, were regularized on 31.07.2006 [Annexure P-3 (colly)], whereas, the petitioner was made to work as daily waged Junior Engineer till his regularization, on 20.12.2008 [Annexure P-7] with immediate effect: (i). Feeling aggrieved against the belated regularization on 20.12.2008 [Annexure P-7], the petitioner submitted a representation on 18.08.2009 [Annexure P-9], with a request to re-consider the case of petitioner for regularization from the date of completion of 8 years of service or alternately from the date the other daily wagers in other cadres under the Respondent-HIMURJA were considered in terms of the Policy dated 09.06.2006 [Annexure P-10], issued by the Government which was adopted by Respondent-HIMURJA, with all consequential benefits. STAND OF RESPONDENT-HIMURJA IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT: 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice by this Court on 15.05.2012, Respondent-HIMURJA filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 05.07.2012 of Chief Executive Officer, HIMURJA, Shimla: (i). Reply-Affidavit indicates that petitioner was engaged as daily wager Junior Engineer in June 1995 and he continued in service as such. It is averred that the meeting of Executive of Respondent- HIMURJA was held on 05.06.2004, Annexure R-1, deciding to forward a proposal to the Government for granting regularization to the daily waged and contractual Junior Engineers. Reply-Affidavit indicates that petitioner was engaged as daily wager Junior Engineer in June 1995 and he continued in service as such. It is averred that the meeting of Executive of Respondent- HIMURJA was held on 05.06.2004, Annexure R-1, deciding to forward a proposal to the Government for granting regularization to the daily waged and contractual Junior Engineers. Reply-Affidavit indicates that the Department of Personnel, Government of Himachal Pradesh issued a communication dated 09.06.2006, providing for regularization of daily wagers/contingent paid workers upon completion of 8 years of continuous service, subject to availability of vacancy and fulfilment of other conditions, as contained in the said Policy. (ii). Reply-Affidavit states that some of the contractual Junior Engineers, had filed an Original Application No.1053 of 2006 and another Original Application No.2031 of 2006, wherein, State Administrative Tribunal passed an interim order not to regularize the services of daily wage Junior Engineers in terms of Policy dated 09.06.2006 but these Original Applications were withdrawn on 24.11.2008 and thereafter the case of petitioner was processed for regularization and the benefit of regularization was accorded to the petitioner, in terms of the Policy dated 09.09.2008 [Annexure R-7] by issuing regularization orders on 20.12.2008 [Annexure R-6]. It is in this backdrop, the Respondent-HIMURJA has opposed the claim of the petitioner, in view of interim orders which were operating at the relevant time and has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. NO REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER: 4. Petitioner chose not to file Rejoinder to the Reply-Affidavit. However, Learned Counsel submits that the claim of petitioner was not disputed by Respondents except for the fact that benefit of regularization could not be given to the petitioner due to interim stay, which remained in operation from 23.06.2006 till 24.11.2008 [as in Para 9-A of Reply-Affidavit]. In these circumstances, the claim was reiterated. 5. Heard, Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Learned Counsel for the Respondent- HIMURJA. ANALYSIS: 6. In these circumstances, the claim was reiterated. 5. Heard, Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Learned Counsel for the Respondent- HIMURJA. ANALYSIS: 6. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of petitioner for considering him for regularization as Junior Engineer from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service and the date from which, other incumbents were regularized in terms of Policy dated 09.06.2006 by issuing the orders on 31.07.2006 [Annexure P-3 (colly)] instead of granting him regularization belatedly on 20.12.2008, has merit and the same deserves to be allowed, for the following reasons:- (i). Admittedly, the petitioner had served as daily wage Junior Engineer in Respondent-HIMURJA from the date of initial engagement on 01.06.1995 and he had completed 10 years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.12.2005 [as borne out from Annexure P-1, at page 18 of paper book]. Having completed 8 years of continuous service from 01.06.1995 onwards, the petitioner became eligible to be considered for regularization a daily wage Junior Engineer in terms of the Policy notified by the Department of Personnel to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which admittedly was adopted by Respondent-HIMURJA on 09.06.2006 [Annexure P-10]. The said Policy provided for considering the claims for regularization of daily wagers who have completed 8 years of continuous service as on 31.03.2004 for regularization against vacant posts, subject to fulfilment of other conditions in the policy. DISCRIMINATION WRIT LARGE: (ii). In terms of the Policy dated 09.06.2006 [Annexure P-6], admittedly, Respondent-HIMURJA has granted regularization to other daily wage incumbents, including Peons, by issuing the orders dated 31.07.2006 [Annexure P-3 (colly)]. Once other incumbents have been granted regularization in terms of Policy dated 09.06.2006 by issuing regularization orders on 31.07.2006 [Annexure P-3 (colly)], then, this Court, sees no reason, as to why the petitioner be not considered for extending the same benefit of regularization. INTERIM ORDERS IN OTHER CASES CANNOT FORM BASIS FOR NEGATING RIGHT OF PETITIONER: (iii). Once other incumbents have been granted regularization in terms of Policy dated 09.06.2006 by issuing regularization orders on 31.07.2006 [Annexure P-3 (colly)], then, this Court, sees no reason, as to why the petitioner be not considered for extending the same benefit of regularization. INTERIM ORDERS IN OTHER CASES CANNOT FORM BASIS FOR NEGATING RIGHT OF PETITIONER: (iii). Respondent-HIMURJA has taken a specific stand in Para 9-A of Reply-Affidavit that though the petitioner had completed 8 years of continuous service in terms of the Policy dated 09.06.2006 but his case could not be considered due to interim stay granted by State Administrative Tribunal on 13.06.2006 in Original Application No.1053 of 2006 and Original Application No.2031 of 2006, filed by the contractual Junior Engineer(s) and the said stay orders remained in operation till withdrawal of said petitions on 24.11.2008. In backdrop of these averments and stand taken in Para 9-A of Reply-Affidavit, once the eligibility of the petitioner for regularization as Junior Engineer in terms of Policy dated 09.06.2006 is not in dispute, then, the consideration for regularization has to be meaningful, effective, practical and purposeful in case of the petitioner also. After stay orders dated 23.06.2006 stood vacated on 24.11.2008 due to withdrawal of petitions filed by contractual Junior Engineers then, the Respondent- HIMURJA was bound to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as Junior Engineer from the date of completion of 08 years of daily wage service in terms of the Policy dated 09.06.2006 [Annexure P-10], under which, the petitioner is eligible and has completed the required continuous service also. Nothing adverse has been pointed out by the Respondent-HIMURJA in Reply-Affidavit, qua the petitioner. Nothing has been placed on record by the Respondent-HIMURJA to establish the ineligibility and non-fulfilment of other terms and conditions by the petitioner as is required by the Policy dated 09.06.2006 [Annexure P-10]. Nothing adverse has been pointed out by the Respondent-HIMURJA in Reply-Affidavit, qua the petitioner. Nothing has been placed on record by the Respondent-HIMURJA to establish the ineligibility and non-fulfilment of other terms and conditions by the petitioner as is required by the Policy dated 09.06.2006 [Annexure P-10]. In these circumstances, once the eligibility is admitted by the Respondent-HIMURJA, coupled with fact that a perusal of communication dated 24.01.2006 [Annexure P-1] unambiguously admits that 14 sanctioned vacant posts of regular Junior Engineers were available with the Respondent-HIMURJA as on 24.01.2006; then, action of the Respondent on denying the consideration and resultant regularization despite being eligible, despite the availability of vacant post(s) and in denying parity as given to other daily wagers reveals unreasonableness, unfairness and discrimination, qua the petitioner, just to deprive him of the regular status and higher pay from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous daily waged service as granted to others on 31.07.2006 [Annexure P-3, Colly]; accordingly, the action of the Respondent in regularizing the petitioner after more than 10 years of daily wage service on 31.07.2006 [Annexure P-3, Colly] is arbitrary and is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. In these circumstances, this Court holds the petitioner entitled for being considered for regularization from the date he completed 8 years of continuous daily wage service in terms of Policy dated 09.06.2006 and upon consideration to grant the resultant regularization to the petitioner as granted to others daily wagers in Respondent-HIMURJA on 31.01.2007 [Annexure P-3]. SUBSEQUENT POLICY ERRONEOUSLY APPLIED: (iv). Perusal of the regularization orders dated 24.12.2008 issued by the Respondent-HIMURJA, reveals that the petitioner was regularized as Junior Engineer on 20.12.2008 [Annexure P-7/Annexure R-6] as Junior Engineer prospectively, by applying the regularization policy dated 09.09.2008 [Annexure R-7 at page 74 of the paper book], which governs the cases of regularization of those daily wagers who have completed 8 years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.03.2008. Pertinently, the policy dated 09.09.2008 [Annexure R-7] was wrongly applied to the prejudice of the petitioner, whereas, it is the policy dated 09.06.2006, vide Annexure P-10, which was to be applied in case of the petitioner for considering him for regularization, despite being eligible and despite fulfilling other conditions and despite the fact that regular vacant posts of Junior Engineers were available as on 24.01.2006 [Annexure P-1] i.e. on the date, when, the Policy dated 09.06.2006 [supra] was notified. In these circumstances the action of the Respondent-HIMURJA in erroneously applying the subsequent policy dated 09.09.2008 [Annexure R-7] cannot sustain, on facts as well as in law. In fact, the case of the petitioner was required to be considered in terms of the Earlier Policy dated 09.06.2006 [Annexure P-10], in the same manner in which, the benefit of regularization has been extended to other daily wagers on 31.01.2007 [Annexure P-3] (supra). Notably, State Government issued the regularization the Policy on 09.06.2006 [Annexure P-10] and this Policy was adopted by the Respondent-HIMURJA also. By virtue of the Policy and its adoption, the Respondent-HIMURJA has granted regularization to other daily wagers on 31.07.2006 [Annexure P-3 (colly)], therefore, once the petitioner, has admittedly completed more than 10 years of continuous daily wage service in December 2005, i.e. on the date of issuance of the policy dated 09.06.2006 [Annexure P-10] therefore, the petitioner certainly has a fundamental right to be considered for regularization, subject to fulfilment of other conditions under the policy dated 09.06.2006. Respondent-HIMURJA cannot apply a pick and choose method while giving regularization to other incumbents [as in Annexure P-3], while denying regularization under this policy to the petitioner. Respondent-HIMURJA cannot apply a pick and choose method while giving regularization to other incumbents [as in Annexure P-3], while denying regularization under this policy to the petitioner. Since, the consideration was denied or kept in abeyance, due to interim orders, which remained in operation from 2006 to 2008, then, after vacation of interim orders, in Original Applications filed by other incumbents, who were contractual Junior Engineers, then, the right of the petitioner for consideration, was required to be restored in terms of the applicable policy dated 09.06.2006 [Annexure P-10] and same could not have been scuttled on the basis of the subsequent policy dated 09.09.2008 [Annexure R-7], which was erroneously applied, in case of the petitioner, ignoring that as per the communication dated 24.01.2006 [Annexure P-1/Annexure R-2] sent by Respondent-HIMURJA to the Government, 14 posts of Junior Engineer were vacant as on 24.01.2006 and even if, combined incumbency of the contractual Junior Engineers and daily wage Junior Engineers is to be taken into account, then also, the petitioner falls at Serial No.6 against 14 vacant regular posts of Junior Engineers and therefore, the claim of the petitioner for regularization deserves to be considered and taken to its logical end, in terms of policy dated 19.06.2006 [Annexure P-10], as extended to others, so as to ensure uniformity in implementation of the said policy and to redress the discriminatory treatment meted out to the petitioner. ACCRUAL OF BENEFITS TO PETITIONER: 7. While coming to the entitlement of the petitioner, for consequential benefits, this Court, in order to maintain balance between the rights of the petitioner vis-a-vis the right of the Respondent- HIMURJA, directs that the petitioner shall be considered for regularization as Junior Engineer in terms of applicable policy dated 09.06.2006 on the same analogy and at par with the benefit of consideration and regularization extended to other daily wagers by regularizing them on 31.07.2006 [Annexure P-3 (colly)]. Upon consideration, the relief(s) shall be limited to notional benefits from 09.06.2006 or 31.07.2006 [as given to others] but actual monetary benefits flowing from regularization, shall accrue to the petitioner, from the date of filing the instant petition on 12.01.2012, for the reason, that the petitioner was regularized as Junior Engineer belatedly on 20.12.2008 vide Annexure P-7 and he submitted a representation on 18.08.2009 [Annexure P-9] which remained undecided till the filing of the instant writ petition. ADDITIONAL PLEA FOR REGULARIZATION FROM JUNE 2003 UNTENABLE: 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner was engaged as daily wager on 01.06.1995 and had completed 8 years of continuous service as daily wage Junior Engineer in 2003 and therefore, the petitioner deserves to be granted regularization from the date of completion of eight years combined service w.e.f. 01.06.2003 or such due date instead of regularizing him on 20.12.2008 [Annexure P-7]. The above contention of Learned Counsel for petitioner, is without merit, for the reasons, firstly, the petitioner has not placed on record any policy providing for regularization automatically on completion of 08 years’ service in 2003 and secondly, mere completion of 08 years of daily waged service will not confer a right for regularization, in absence of any policy and in absence of proof of availability of vacancy on such date and fulfilment of other parameters and thirdly, the policy dated 09.06.2006 cannot be applied retrospectively so as to grant benefits from an earlier date i.e. from 2003 as contended; and fourthly, the claim for regularization from 2003 in terms of policy dated 09.06.2006 cannot be granted, so as to render the requirement of cut-off date [08 years continuous service as on 31.03.2004] otiose; and lastly, the cut-off date in the policy dated 09.06.2006 has not been assailed by the petitioner and therefore, claim for regularization from 2003 i.e. date of completion of 08 years daily waged service is disallowed, in facts of instant case. DIRECTIONS: 9. DIRECTIONS: 9. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, instant petition is allowed, in the following terms:- (i) Respondent-HIMURJA shall consider and grant regularization to the petitioner as Junior Engineer in terms of the Policy dated 09.06.2006 [Annexure P-10]; upon completion of 08 years continuous service from the date other daily wagers were regularized under same policy vide orders dated 31.07.2006 [Annexure P-3, Colly]; (ii) Petitioner shall be given “notional service benefits” from due date but actual monetary benefits shall accrue as Junior Engineer from the date of filing of the instant petition on 12.01.2012 and thereafter with all consequential benefits ; (iii) Claim of the petitioner for regularization from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous service from June 2003, being dehors the Policy dated 09.06.2006, is turned down; (iv) Consequential benefits as in directions No.(i) to (iii) shall be released by the Respondent-HIMURJA within four weeks from receipt of certified/downloaded copy of this judgment; (v) Costs made easy for respective parties. In the aforesaid terms, the instant petitions and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall accordingly stand disposed of.