JUDGMENT : G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, in Execution Petition No.176 of 2025, titled Sant Ram and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby, learned Single Judge has directed that the mandate given in CWPOA No.3562 of 2019 titled Sant Ram and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 06.09.2022 and upheld by the Division Bench in LPA No.153 of 2023, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Sant Ram and another had to be complied with. Resultantly, time was given to the State to grant the said benefits, failing which, attachment of the property of the Department and the salary of the erring officials had been ordered. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently submitted that the order in the present case was the subject matter of consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in a bunch of cases, lead case of which, was Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and another, decided on 06.02.2025. It is, thus, contended that the issue therein was only regarding benefit of work charge status to be given to daily wagers after completion of eight years of service. It is, thus, the case of the State that Civil Appeal No.1858 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Sant Ram, was also wrongly decided, with the bunch matters, since the issue of regularization was also subject matter of consideration, of the writ petitioners, who are basically employees of a project, namely Himachal Pradesh Natural Resource Management Society, which is clear from Annexure P-2. In the present case, the benefit of work charge status had already been given to the two employees. While referring to the notification dated 19.04.2017, it is submitted that it was a policy framed for four projects, namely:-(i) H.P. Mid Himalayan Watershed Development Project (HPMHWDP) (2005)-17); (ii) Swan River Project, Una (2006-16); (iii) Kandi Project I&II (1990-2005); and (iv) Indo-German Changer Project (1992-2006). 3. While referring to the notification dated 19.04.2017, it is submitted that it was a policy framed for four projects, namely:-(i) H.P. Mid Himalayan Watershed Development Project (HPMHWDP) (2005)-17); (ii) Swan River Project, Una (2006-16); (iii) Kandi Project I&II (1990-2005); and (iv) Indo-German Changer Project (1992-2006). 3. It is, thus, submitted that Hon’ble Apex Court, in Surajmani’s case (supra) has held that notional benefits were only to be given to the employees who were entitled for the benefit of work charge status on completion of eight years of service and also gave the State liberty as such to take steps for recovering the amount already paid, keeping in view the fact that the law already stood settled in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316; Rakesh Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, passed in CWP No.2735 of 2010, dated 27.07.2010; and State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Ashwani Kumar, passed in Civil Appeal No.5753 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019. 4. Accordingly, reference is made by the State to the order dated 21.11.2025 giving benefit, as such, of the work charge status to Sant Ram and other writ petitioner, namely Rai Singh, on completion of eight years of service notionally w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Perusal of the said order would go on to show that it was subject to the final outcome of the review petition filed by the State Government. 5. It is not in dispute that the review petitions in Civil Appeal No.1858 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Sant Ram and another; Civil Appeal No.1857 of 2025 titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Yudhbir Singh and; Civil Appeal No.1766 of 2025 titled The State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Maan Singh and another, were dismissed on 03.02.2026 by the Apex Court. The order reads as under:- “Delay condoned. I.A. Nos.137848/25, 137850/25 and 137383/25 for oral hearing are rejected. We have perused the averments made in the review petitions as also the grounds stated therein. In our opinion, no case for review of order dated 06.02.2025 is made out. The review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ” 6. While keeping in view the above, we have asked the State to produce the grounds of review. In our opinion, no case for review of order dated 06.02.2025 is made out. The review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ” 6. While keeping in view the above, we have asked the State to produce the grounds of review. The counsel for the employees has submitted that, once the review petitions had been dismissed and the same grounds had been taken, the issue of regularization had already been considered, but only the benefit of work-charge status had been granted and not the benefit of regularization granted by the learned Single Judge, upheld by the Division Bench, and affirmed in a batch of cases in Surajmani’s case (supra). 7. Mr. C.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has brought to the notice of this Court the proceedings held on 29th meeting of the said society which was chaired by Mr. Tarun Kapoor, the Additional Chief Secretary, Forests, on 25.09.2018 to point out that under Item No.7- Remuneration-Structure of Contractual/Daily Wage staff of the Society (HPNRM), decision in principle had been taken for employees who had completed seven years continuous service in regular remuneration structure and the qualifying service was to be counted from 01.05.2006 after the date of registration for the Society, i.e., 26.04.2006. After detailed elaboration, it was decided that employees who have completed 07-10 years of service on contract and daily wage basis, respectively, would be entitled for regularization in the Society. 8. In such circumstances, the only defence of the State is that the said decision has not been approved by the Government. However, nothing has been placed before us to show that the said approval was not granted. The decision was taken way back in the year, 2018 and, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court recently in Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, along-with connected matter, (2024) SCC Online SC 3826 and Dharam Singh vs. Union of India and others, 2025 INSC 998 , the State is under bounden duty, as such to give the benefit of regularization to such employees who have worked for over 30 years. 9. 9. A perusal of the initial order of learned Single Judge would go on to show that the specific relief of regularization was claimed, apart from the benefit of regular work charge status of the petitioners with all consequential benefits on the ground that employment was way back in the year, 1996 in the Kandi Hills Project and thereafter the employees had been shifted to the Mid Himalayan Watershed Development Project run by the Forest Department. Learned Single Judge, thus, came to the conclusion and framed a question, as to whether there was a right to claim work charge status or/and regularization and vide a detailed order held that the respondents had been directed to regularize the services of Forest employees who could not be singled out and discriminated and the State was to act as model employer. Therefore, right of grant of work charge status/ regularization applying principle of legitimate expectations, as such, has to be granted. The State was unsuccessful in the LPA was dismissed, whereby it was found in Paragraph-7 of the order dated 07.10.2023, passed in LPA No.153 of 2023 that four persons, as such, have been regularized who had worked in the Kandi Hills Project and the orders of regularization had been passed by the Officer of the Forest Department. 10. Resultantly, a view was taken that different yardsticks could not be adopted for the petitioners while dismissing the appeal. It is not disputed that the State, on its own, had all the matters clubbed together before the Apex Court, as a common question had arisen. The Apex Court, while deciding Surajmani’s case (supra) along with 550 other connected cases, has now decided the matters and, resultantly, it is found that no specific directions for regularization passed in favour of Sant Ram and Rai Singh, have been set aside. Apparently, on account of the execution petition having been filed, a review petition had been filed. It would be clear from the order dated 21.11.2025, whereby the benefit of work charge status had been granted subject to the outcome of the review petition. Perusal of the grounds of review would go on to show that a specific plea was taken that the employees were of autonomous society and not liable to be regularized under the State Regularization Policy. Perusal of the grounds of review would go on to show that a specific plea was taken that the employees were of autonomous society and not liable to be regularized under the State Regularization Policy. The grounds read as under:- “A. FOR THAT the Respondents are employees of a registered  autonomous  society  and  as  such  is  not amenable to being regularised under the State's regularization policy. B. FOR THAT the Respondents are not employees of the Government of Himachal Pradesh and are rather employees of a registered autonomous society. C. FOR THAT vide Order dated 16.05.2025 this Hon'ble Court in the Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 16927/2025 entitled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.v. Gopal Singh' has issued notice. It is most respectfully submitted that the case of Gopal Singh (supra) is on parity with the present case of the Petitioner-State. D. FOR THAT in the case of Gopal Singh (supra) the Respondent, who was working engaged under externally aided, time-bound development projects executed through the Himachal Pradesh Natural Resource Management Society (HPNRMS), a registered autonomous society, approached the High Court seeking regularization and treating him at par with Government daily wagers. It is most respectfully submitted that the instant case is at a similar footing as in Gopal (supra), and in view of the same, the Petitioner-State herein crave the leave of this Hon'ble Court to kindly allow the present Petition and review the Order dated 06.02.2025. E. FOR THAT 'State of H.P. & Ors. v. Surajmani & Anr. [SLP (C) No. 23016/2023] was confined to conferment of work charge status only on completion of eight years of daily wage service whereas in the present case the issue relates to regularization of their services along with conferment of work charge status to the project staff of the society. F. FOR THAT the State's regularization policies, inter-alia policy dated 18.06.2007, is only applicable to employees of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. G. FOR THAT directions for continuation of posts cannot be issued when posts created for the purposes of a particular project have been completed. [Karnataka State Coop. Apex Bank Ltd. v. Y.S. Shetty, (2000) 10 SCC 179 , Mohd. Abdul Kadir & Anr. G. FOR THAT directions for continuation of posts cannot be issued when posts created for the purposes of a particular project have been completed. [Karnataka State Coop. Apex Bank Ltd. v. Y.S. Shetty, (2000) 10 SCC 179 , Mohd. Abdul Kadir & Anr. v. Director General of Police, Assam & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 611 ] H. FOR THAT the employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, the same service benefits on a par with the government employees. [State of Maharashtra v. Bhawgan (2022) 4 SCC 193 ] I. FOR THAT when the project is closed/culminated, the employees working in the project are entitled to any vested right. [Managing Director, U.P. Land Development Corp. v. Amar Singh' (2003) 5 SCC] J. FOR THAT that upon completion of a project, the employees working in the said project are not entitled to any vested rights, inter-alia permanent status/ regularization. [Managing Director, U.P. Land Development Corpn. v. Amar Singh, (2003) 5 SCC 388, [Lal Mohammad v. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd., (2007) 2 SCC 513 ]. K. FOR THAT the Respondent's Petition seeking regularisation of service was allowed without appreciating the fact that contractual employees cannot seek regularization of service. [Delhi Development Horticulture Employee Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi & Ors.; (1992) 4 SCC 99 ] L. FOR THAT that the Respondents are not liable to be conferred work-charged status without being employed in a work-charged establishment. M. FOR THAT the Notification dated 19.04.2017 issued to regulate service conditions of daily wage workers engaged in the Society's projects. N. FOR THAT the Petitioner-State could not have been directed to confer work-charged status upon the Respondents on completion of eight years of uninterrupted services, ignoring the Notification dated 27.01.2016 issued by the Department of Finance. O. FOR THAT in the case the present Review Petition is not allowed by this Hon'ble Court, other similarly situated people in the Petitioner-Sate will approach the Hon'ble Courts causing huge financial as well as infrastructural losses to the State Exchequer and hence, grave prejudice will be caused to the Petitioner-State. P. Any other Ground, with the permission of this Hon'ble Court.” 11. As noticed above, the review petition has now been dismissed. P. Any other Ground, with the permission of this Hon'ble Court.” 11. As noticed above, the review petition has now been dismissed. Once the State, having preferred to file a review petition and met with no success, this Court, while exercising its appellate powers against the orders passed in execution proceedings, would not be able to record a finding to the contrary, as contended by the State, to deny the benefit of regularization to Sant Ram and Rai Singh. The litigants have specifically pleaded and have succeeded in three rounds of litigation on the issue of regularization. It is not disputed that they have been working since 1996. 12. The Apex Court, in Jago and Dharam Singh, has also recently held that the benefit of regularization, after approximately 30 years of service, cannot be kept in limbo. It was the bounden duty of the State to frame a policy for regularization in light of the observations made by the Constitution Bench in the judgment passed in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 . 13. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out to stall the execution proceedings as is being attempted by the State to challenge the interim order. 14. Further, the learned Additional Advocate General has stated that order of the Division Bench has merged into the order passed in the Surajmani’s case as held in Balbir Singh vs. Baldev Singh (deceased) through LRs, AIR 2025 SC 632 and, therefore, writ petitioners cannot be granted the said benefit. 15. Keeping in view the fact that the review petition has been dismissed and the specific relief sought by the State has been rejected, we are not in a position to come to different conclusion to the contrary, as this Court is bound by the orders passed by the Apex Court, just as the State is bound by the said orders. 16. In view of above terms, present appeal is dismissed, so also, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.