IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13929 of 2009 1. JILDAR RAI S/O LATE DABAN RAI VILL.- AURAIYA, P.O.- DHAKA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SPECIAL SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, NIRMAN BHAWAN, PATNA 3. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF - CUM - ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER – CUM - SPECIAL SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, NIRMAN BHAWAN, PATNA 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, NORTH CIRCLE, DARBHANGA 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, NORTH CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, ROAD DIVISION, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI ----------- 2. 4.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The claim by the petitioner, a daily wager is for regularization. On his own admission, he is not in employment even as a daily wager from 31.10.1993. Invoking Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it is submitted that the petitioner and one Satyendra Mishra were similarly situated and came to this Court when similar orders to make regular appointments and to consider their cases also came to be passed. The petitioner pursued the matter in M.J.C. No. 3836 of 2000 disposed off on 2.4.2004 and 17.11.2003. Satyendra Mishra in like manner obtained similar orders from this Court when the authorities on 14.8.2009 have regularized him in service. Learned counsel for the State submits that this 2 Court never directed regularization of the petitioner but only that his case may also be considered when vacancies are regularly filled up as distinct from the same in the writ petition filed by Satyendra Mishra on 24.9.2004, this Court directed to consider his case for regularization within three months as is apparent from Annexure-2. As service jurisprudence has evolved it has presently cristalized in 2006(2) PLJR 368 (SC) (Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & Ors.) (3). Paragraph 45 of the judgment explicitly states as follows:- “It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.” Earlier thereto in the same judgment the Supreme Court has clearly held at Paragraph 39 and other paragraphs of the same that daily wagers hold no post and they form a class by themselves. Their mere engagement in the exigency of the work and long continuance does not create in them a claim for regularization as it was not a mode of appointment. The observation made in Paragraph 44 of the judgment for a one time consideration for regularization not cover in its ambit a daily wage employee and is confined to those appointed on the regular vacancy though in an irregular manner and distinct from an illegal appointment. 3 Clearly, therefore, the judgment of the Court in the case of Satyendra Mishra dated 24.9.2004 no more held the field on 14.8.2009 in view of Paragraph 45 of the judgment of Uma Devi noticed above. If notwithstanding the same, the respondents have passed an order on 14.8.2009 of regularization, the petitioner cannot ask this Court to operate Article 14 in negativity by perpetuating an illegality. What shall be the fake of Satyendra Mishra in light of the aforesaid discussion if for the respondents to dedide in accordance with law but shall certainly not vest in the petitioner a claim of parity. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)