IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18646 of 2009 1. Ram Chandra Sah S/O Late Teka Sah R/O Vill- Nipania, P.O. & P.S. Barauni, Distt. Begusarai 2. Bipin Malakar S/O Sri Tulsi Malakar R/O Barauni, P.O. & P.S. Barauni, Distt. Begusarai 3. Surya Narayan Mahto S/O Kamali Mahto R/O Vill- Rajiwara, Gachhi Tola, P.O. & P.S. Barauni, Distt. Begusarai 4. Dinesh Chaurasia S/O Jethu Mahto R/O Vill- Pakthaul, P.S. Teghra, Distt. Begusarai Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through Secretary Animal Husbandry Deptt., Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary Personnel And Administrative Reforms Deptt., Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director Animal Husbandry Deptt., Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. Special Deputy Director (Animal Husbandary) Cattle Development Scheme (Headquarters Level) Barauni, Distt. Begusarai 5. Assistant Director (Cattle Development) Cattle Development Scheme (Regional Level) Barauni, Distt. Begusarai 6. Artificial Insemination Officer Semen Bank, Barauni, Distt. Begusarai 7. Special Officer, Intensive Animal Development Block Barauni, Distt. Begusarai ----------- 3. 25.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 19.8.2008/26.8.2008 passed by the respondents declining to grant them the benefit of regularization in pursuance of the directions given by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5675 of 2001 and analogous cases relying upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench in (2006)4 SCC 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 2 that this Court had directed consideration by a three man committee. The impugned order is by one person only as mentioned in the very opening line of the order. He next submits that the petitioners are still working as daily wage as they stood reinstated by virtue of the order of status quo passed by this Court while making reference to the Committee. That vacancies are available and they can well be considered for regularization. The denial of regularization was contrary to the State Government policy decision for regularizing persons appointed prior to 1985 subsequently extended to the year 1990. Counsel for the State has supported the impugned order. It is submitted that being daily wagers the petitioners have no right to be considered for regularization. The respondents have complied with the order of the Court for consideration. The petitioners assert appointment on daily wages in 1984/89. It is their own pleading in Paragraph-8 that they were relieved from duty in 1996. Any assertions that they were re-engaged thereafter without any positive documentary proof in support of the same make their status as of date a disputed question of fact. The onus lay on them to buttress their claim by documentary evidence. 3 In the case of Uma Devi (supra) the Constitution Bench at Paragraph-43 had specifically clarified that persons appointed on contract, daily wages or casual basis do not hold any post. The direction given in Paragraph-53 for consideration as a one time measure of persons who had completed 10 years as an irregular and not an illegal appointee obviously did not take within its ambit daily wagers who did not hold any post at all. Directions being given by the Courts for consideration as one time measure for regularization of daily wagers also in pursuance thereto led to the Supreme Court clarifying the matter and explaining the judgment of Uma Devi in (2010) 4 SCC 179 ( Satya Prakash & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) at Paragraph 14 that daily wagers do not come within the ambit of the direction in Uma Devi (Supra) to be considered for consideration as one time measure irrespective of the question whether they have completed 10 years or not. If by subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court the very substratum of the reference upon which the claim of the petitioner has vanished, this Court finds it difficult to consider the challenge to the impugned order. In so far as the contention with regard to any policy decision of the State Government is 4 concerned, the Court finds that the earlier judgment of the Court was not based upon the same and there were no directions for consideration in light of the same. The Court is therefore not persuaded to reopen that chapter in the present application. On the own showing of the petitioner they are not in employment since 1996. While making the reference this Court in the earlier writ application did not give any direction for restoration of status quo ante. Therefore those terminated in 1996 cannot claim reinstatement by virtue of the order of status quo passed on 7.2.2007. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)