IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1288 of 2004 Nirmala Singh, w/o-Late Digambar Nath Singh, resident of Mohalla-B.B.S. Lane, Alamganj, P.S.-Alamganj, District and Town-Patna. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Bishbeswaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief, PWD (Road Construction) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Chief Engineer, Ganga Pool Project, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 7. The Superintending Engineer, National High Way Circle, Patna. 8. The Executive Engineer, National High Way Gulzarbagh Division, Patna. -Respondents. ----------- 07 05.01.2011 The petitioner was employed as a daily wager in a work charged establishment. In 1987, he was shifted to permanent establishment. Apparently, in view of a Government policy decision, to regularize such employees who were in the work charged establishment and had worked for over 10 years, unfortunately for the petitioner, within two months of his regularization in the permanent establishment, the same was cancelled and he was reverted back to work charged establishment. Petitioner chose not to challenge it. Thereafter, in 1982 he was brought to the permanent establishment. He then applied that his date for being brought in the permanent establishment be changed retrospectively to 1984 and that not having been done the writ petition has been filed. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner died and has been substituted by his wife. - 2 - Heard the petitioner, in my view, the writ petition suffers from constructive res judicata. The petitioner had a right to object and challenge the cancellation of his absorption in the permanent establishment as was made in the 1987 with effect from 01.04.1984 but he did not do so. When subsequently five years later he was so absorbed he sought for a change of date. It was not acceded to. He now by this writ petition filed in the year 2004 virtually seeks to challenge the order sending him back to work charged establishment that was passed in the year 1987 which order he chose not to challenge earlier. Thus, the writ petition is barred by laches and constructive res judicata and is dismissed as such. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)