decision given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar ’s case supra did not lay down any law and the observations made therein were per incuriam. This leads to the inference that the State/Department has rather adopted a pick and choose Policy. Once, the judgment in Ashwani Kumar ’s case supra has been implemented and has attained finality, then the respondents/petitioners who are similarly situated, are liable to be granted the same relief. So far as the observation made by this Court in Rakesh Kumar’ s case supra to the effect that the question of conferment of work charge status did not arise in case the establishment ceases to be a work charge establishment, is concerned, the said observation had been made without there being any issue raised in this regard. The decision given in Rakesh Kumar’ s case has been admittedly implemented and the petitioners have been granted work charge status on their completion of 8 years of service on daily wage basis. Thus, in that case there was no issue as to whether the establishment was a work charge one or not. Thus, in the present cases, the issue involved already stands settled vide judgment given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar ’s case supra which has been followed by this Court time and again and, admittedly, many writ petitions have been decided in terms thereof and the said decisions have been duly implemented. Hence, the State cannot be permitted to take a pick and choose Policy. In the case of Rakesh Kumar supra, this Court had categorically held that the question of delay in the present cases is not to be taken for consideration and can be considered for denial of interest on the eligible benefits and not the benefits as such. Hence, the State cannot be permitted to re-agitate the issue which has already been settled by this Court. Rather, the State should itself grant the relief to the daily wagers by conferring work charge status on them after completion of 8 years of service in terms of their Policies and decisions of this Court.
