ORDER :

1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief:-

“i). To quash and set aside Annexure A-6 dated 24.12.2016 passed by respondent department.

ii) Respondent department may kindly be directed to grant work charge status to the applicant on completion of 8 years of service, i.e. 1.1.2003.

iii) That the respondent department may further kindly be directed to grant all consequential benefits to the applicant.”

2. The claim of petitioner is for grant of work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.2003 by counting his service to be continuous from 1995.

3. Respondents are contesting the claim of petitioner on the grounds that from 1995 till 1998, petitioner had not completed 240 days in any of the calendar years. It was w.e.f. 1999 that petitioner could complete 240 days of his daily wage employment. Thus, petitioner completed eight years of continuous service as daily wager on 31.12.2006 but since the State Government had abolished the work charge status for Class-IV employees w.e.f. 12.12.2005, petitioner was not entitled for automatic conformant of work charge status even on completion of eight years. Petitioner became entitled for regularization in 2010 and was accordingly regularized from due date.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

5. The instant litigation has a chequered history. The services of petitioner were disengaged in 1998. Petitioner approached the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 2304 of 1998. The said application was disposed of by the erstwhile Tribunal vide order dated 4.6.1999 in following terms:-

“The learned Additional Advocate General has represented that the Department is ready to engage the applicant as daily-waged Beldar in another Section which is situated at a distance of 30 kms from the present place where the applicant was working. The aforesaid officer is accepted by the learned counsel for the applicant and therefore, in view of the aforesaid offer given by the learned Additional Advocate General, the applicant be reengaged without any undue delay.

With these observations, the present application stands disposed of. However, the applicant shall not be entitled for back wages but the period of absence shall be treated for the purpose of seniority.”

6. After his reengagement, petitioner once again approached this Court by way of CWP No. 4527 of 2012, seeking work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.2003 on the basis of his daily wage service, rendered by him since 1995 and a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.10.2014, passed in CWP No. 4527 of 2012, directed the respondents to consider the case of petitioner. Respondents rejected the case of petitioner vide office order dated 25.4.2015. Petitioner then approached the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1387 of 2015, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.2.2016 in following terms:-

“The present original application, therefore, is allowed with the following directions:-

i) Consequently, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for granting him work charge status on completion of 8 years service, that is, with effect from 1st January, 2003.

ii) The respondents are further directed to grant all consequential benefits to the applicant within a period of one month on production of certified copy of this order.”

7. The aforesaid order passed by the learned erstwhile Tribunal was assailed by respondents by way of CWP No. 3010 of 2016 but the same was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 8.12.2016. Respondent No.3 again rejected the case of petitioner vide office order dated 24.12.2016, which is the subject matter of present petition.

8. The facts of the case now are not in dispute. Petitioner has rendered continuous daily wage service with 240 days in a calendar year since 1999 and was regularized in 2010. Thus, petitioner will be entitled for work charge status on completion o