IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5803 of 2010 1. Sunil Kumar Singh, S/O Late Kripal Singh, R/O Vill Saraiya, P.O.& P.S.Goh, Distt-Aurangabad 2. Arun Kumar Singh S/O Sri Bhikhari Singh, R/O Vill Bakhatari, P.O.Talpura, P.S.Karpi, Distt-Arwal … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner Cum-Secretary to Govt. Public Health Engineering Department Bisheshwariya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 2. The Engineer -In-Chief Cum Special Secretary Public Health Engineering Department Bisheshwariaya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Public Health Engineering Department Bishwesharaiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 4. The Superintending Engineer, P.H.E Circle Arra 5. The Executive Engineer , P.H.E. Division, Bhabhua 6. The Executive Engineer , P.H.E.Division Arra. .. Respondents For the Peitioners : Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, G.P.-12. ----------- 3 09.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 06.02.2007 passed by the respondents declining to regularize their services after consideration in terms of the directions of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1478 of 2002 disposed with a batch of analogous cases led by C.W.J.C. No. 7359 of 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed in the work charged establishment on 12.12.1986. It was their specific case in C.W.J.C. No. 1478 of 2002 as noticed in paragraph 5 of the Division Bench order that they were entitled to be considered for regularization under the F.D. memo no. 1344 dated 04.02.1949 a statutory rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution regulating the issue for induction of work charged employees into the regular 2 establishment. The respondents have not considered that aspect in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the State submits that the directions of the Division Bench for consideration were not in the light of the same. The petitioner was required to be considered for regularization in accordance with the law laid down in (2006) 4 SCC 1 ( Secretary, State of Karnataka Vrs. Uma Devi). He submits that persons like the petitioners considered in paragraph 43 of that judgment do not come within the category of persons required to be considered as one time measure for regularization in paragraph 53 as it deals with persons in the permanent establishment only but who may have been irregularly appointed. He submits that this has subsequently been explained by the Supreme Court in (2010) 3 SCC 115 (State of Karnataka Vrs. Ganpati Chaya Nayak and (2010) 4 SCC 179 ( Satya Prakash Mishra Vrs. State of Bihar ). The issues involved in the present case, to this Court appear fundamentally different. The petitioners certainly do not have a claim for regularization under Uma Devi (supra). There is no material before this Court to hold that the claim for induction into the regular establishment from the work charge establishment as noticed in paragraph 5 of the Division Bench order was ever raised by them before the authorities in pursuance of the reference. If the petitioner gave up that claim and pursued the mater before the authorities only under Uma 3 Devi (supra), there is no reason to reason to interfere with the impugned order. But, if the petitioners raised the issue of their regularization under F.D. memo No. 1344 dated 04.02.1949 and it has not been decided, the respondents are now obliged to decide the same in view of the dismissal of their SLP (C) No. 18380 of 2008 by the Supreme Court confirming the Division Bench order in C.W.J.C. No 16060 of 2004 giving directions for regularization of work charge employees in accordance therewith. Let the respondents now re-consider the matter in the light of the present discussion and pass appropriate speaking orders within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The application stands disposed. Md. Ibrarul ( Navin Sinha, J.)