IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8143 of 2009 1. RABINDRA NATH PANDEY 2. Ramakant Rai 3. Ram Pravesh Paswan ………………………… Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 31.08.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. It is submitted that the petitioners who were daily wagers came to be appointed by order dated 24.1.2009 and started discharge of duties. A direction was issued on 2.4.2009 not to accept the joining of the petitioners. It is more than apparent from the communication dated 26.5.2009 of the Chief Engineer that joining of the petitioners had been accepted in pursuance of the earlier order dated 24.1.2009 prior to 2.4.2009. Learned Counsel for the State contended that the petitioners could not have been regularised in the manner done but the entire exercise was to be carried in the light of the direction given in the case of State of Karnataka Vrs Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. Once formal orders for regularisation of the petitioners have been passed and in pursuance of which they had joined duties the question of not accepting their joining does not arise. If the petitioners have been appointed, any further action against them is only to be in accordance with law as government employees. The order dated 2.4.2009 is accordingly set aside. The application stands allowed. If the petitioners represent for their salary for the period after their joining the respondents are required to consider and dispose of the same expeditiously within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of the present order. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)