IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18610 of 2008 1. Suresh Prasad Suresh, son of late Yaman Prasad, R/o Akbarha, P S – Bakhtiarpur, District – Saharsa. 2. Sri Rajendra Narayan Jha, son of late Radhakant Jha, R/o Rahua, P S – Saur Bazar, District – Saharsa. 3. Surendra Kumar Singh, son of Chandrama Singh, R/o Narayanpur, P S – Taraiyan, District – Chapra. 4. Syed Nazuruddin, son of late Sayed, R/0 Makdumchak, P.S. Bakhtiarpur, District –Saharsa. 5. Abdur Rahim son of late Harun Rashid, resident of Tariyama, P S – Bakhtiarpur, District – Saharsa. 6. Dayanand Ram son of late Soti ram, resident of Manori, P S – Sonbarsa, District – Saharsa. 7. Ram Soran Yadav son of Ramjee Prasad Yadav, R/o Bhaura, P S – Simri, Bakhtiarpur, District – Saharsa. 8. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, son of late Shyam Singh, R/o Sonbarsa, P S – Sonbarsa, District - Saharsa Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Finance Commissioner cum Secretary, Old Secretariat, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Finance Commissioner cum Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Administrator, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board (Abolished), Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. Agriculture Production Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 5. The Sub-divisional Officer cum Special Officer, Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (Abolished), Simri Bakhtiarpur, District – Saharsa. ---------------------------------- 02. 19.12.2011 Issue raised by the petitioners has been squarely answered by a Division Bench of this Court, which is the case of Nand Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2010 (1) PLJR 763. Issue was right of daily wagers to claim regularization and absorption under the State after the Repeal Act of Bihar Agriculture Marketing Board. The Division Bench has said in para 6 as hereunder: “So far as first submission is concerned, in our view, it suffers from a misconception that persons, who are employed as daily wagers, stand on same footing of officers and employees of the Board in regular employment. Section 6(i) itself makes it clear that 2 after the repeal of the Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1960, all officers and employees of the Board are to continue in employment as if the Act had not been repealed and they shall continue to be paid what they were getting earlier as salary and allowances till such time the State Government takes a final decision as per further provisions of Section 6. The effect of such provision is to allow officers and employees of the Board to continue in employment on the same footing and status as existed prior to the Repeal Act 2006 till such time the State Government takes a final decision as provided under the Repeal Act 2006. This provision itself maintains the distinction between the status of daily wage employees and the regular employees of the Board. By no stretch of imagination such provision can be construed so as to treat the daily wage employees like the petitioners to have acquired same status as the regular employees only because the Board as per Act of 1960 stood repealed. The clause “…… shall continue to be paid same salary and allowances as was payable on the date of repeal of the Act….” conveys the intention of the Legislature in no uncertain terms that officers and employees of the Board would retain their status and entitlements and if the same were different, the difference would continue. Hence, the submission that now the Committee or the State Government are discriminating between daily wage employees and the regular employees has no substance because such difference continues and is recognized by the provisions in Section 6(i) of the Repeal Act 2006 itself.” If this finding is on the issue of claim by these 3 petitioners who are also daily wagers, then they have no right for a direction to be issued by this Court. It is, however, clarified that the issue has not attained finality in the sense that petitioner Nand Kumar and others are before the Hon`ble Supreme Court by way of SLP. If any decision is rendered by the Hon`ble Apex Court in favour of such persons, then claim of the present petitioners may also be revisited. Writ is otherwise dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)