IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14923 of 2009 1. RAM BALAK RAM S/O LATE BUCHCHUN RAM VILL CHANDI KARNAUL P.O CHANDI KARNAUL, P.S. CHARPOKHARI, IN THE DISTRICT OF BHOJPUR 2. BINDHYACHAL PATHAK S/O SRI MADHAB PATHAK RESIDENT OF MOHANPUR, POST BASUDEO DIHRI, P.S. DINARA IN THE DISTRICT OF ROHTAS, SASARAM 3. SIDHESHWAR PRAJAPAT S/O LATE BAL GOVIND PRAJAPAT RESIDENT OF CHAKAND STATION, POST CHAKAND STATION, P.S CHANDAUTI IN THE DISTRICT OF GAYA 4. RAM UDAR SINGH S/O LATE JITAN SINGH RESIDENT OF RAMPUR NAYA SHERPUR, POST SHERPUR, P.S. MANER, IN THE DISTRICT OF PATNA 5. CHANDRADEO SINGH S/O LATE GORAKH SINGH RESIDENT OF KASHIMCHAK BARA, POST. DILIP CHAK P.S DANAPUR IN THE DISTRICT OF PATNA 6. BIRENDRA SINGH S/O SHATRUGHNA SINGH VILL+POST LAKHAWAR, P.S. GHOSI IN THE DISTRICT OF JAHANABAD 7. BODH NARAYAN RAI S/O SRI JAGBAL RAI VILL BHALUANA POST CHANDI KARNAUL, DISTT BHOJPUR(ARA) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY , PUBLIC HEALTH & ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, VISHESHWARIAYA BHAWAN, PATNA 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT GOVERNEMENT OF BIHAR, VISHESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, PATNA 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PATNA CIRCLE, RAJBANSHI NAGAR, PATNA 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER , PATNA DIVISION, RAJBANSHI NAGAR, PATNA ----------- 2/ 24/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners were appointed initially on daily wages on different dates in between 1980 to 1982. They were brought into the work charge establishment in February, 1988. In April, 2002 they were sought to be reverted to their status of daily wage. They came to this Court in CWJC No. 6293 of 2002 and 6760 of 2002. The writ applications came to be disposed with a large batch of analogous cases giving directions to consider for regularization in accordance with inter alia the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. v. Uma Devi & ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1. They have now been directed to be regularized by an 2 order dated 28.11.2006 and given fresh posting, in pursuance of which formal orders with regard to them have been issued on 29.11.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled to the work charge scale for the period that they continued to work as such in pursuance of their having approached this Court in CWJC No. 6293 of 2002 and 6760 of 2002, and the interim orders passed therein. The second submission is that the regularization has to be granted on completion of five years in the work charge establishment to be computed from February, 1988 in terms of the orders of the Apex court at Annexure-12 and a Full Bench decision of the Jharkhand High Court at Annexure-13 instead of 29.11.2006. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners could be entitled to work charge scale, if they have any specific order in their favour. From Annexure-9 to the writ petition, it appears that the petitioners rely on an interim order passed by this court in two other separate writ applications in support of their claim for scale of work charged employee. In absence of any specific interim order with regard to the petitioners when they came to this Court challenging reversion to the daily wage status 3 in separate writ applications, this Court finds it difficult to pass any positive orders. It is for the petitioners to satisfy the authorities that they too had a specific interim order restraining reversion to the daily wage status. Only in that event, the Respondents shall be obliged to consider the claim of the petitioners for grant of work charge scale after deducting the difference paid as daily wage. It appears that the petitioners have never agitated for enforcement of their claim for regularization on ground of completion of five years in work charge establishment computed from February, 1988. It does not appear from the order of this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioners that this issue was specifically agitated by them. The order of this Court at Annexure-12 relates to absorption of work charge employees after completion of five years of service under a Government notification. The petitioners cannot claim equality of status with those who may have agitated their claims in time. It appears from the said Annexure that Special Leave Petition itself was filed in the year 2003. The petitioners cannot claim parity with those who are vigilant and it is well settled law that even similar orders can be denied to another litigant who indulged in 4 fence sitting and does not move the Court in time. For the same reason, this Court finds it difficult to grant any positive relief to the petitioners in context of the Full Bench judgment of the Jharkhand High Court relied upon. It is settled law that regularization is always prospective. There can be no retrospective regularisation as claimed by the petitioners. If the petitioners chose not to raise the issue in their earlier writ application before this Court when they were being sought to be reverted to the status of daily wage, this Court finds substance in the stand of the State that this issue is now barred by constructive res judicata also. The order for regularization is not a carte blanche to reopen all issues. The writ petition, thus, stands disposed in light of the aforesaid discussion. Any representation for work charge wages, as discussed above, is expected to be disposed by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. AKS/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)