IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6044 of 2001 1. RAMESHWAR RAM, son of Sri Mukdeo Ram, resident of village – Phulkaha, Police Station Sitamarhi, District Sitamarhi, at present Room Attendant Hotel Kautilya Vihar, Patna 2. Rajesh Ram, son of Bandhu Ram, resident of Village Yarpur, PS Gardanibagh, District Patna, at present posted as Sweeper in Kautilya Vihar, Patna …….Petitioners Versus THE Managing Director, Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation, Patna …….Respondent ----------- 10- 22.12.2008 Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar for the petitioners, and Mr. Kumar Abhmanyu Pratap for the respondents. The two petitioners seek direction to the respondent-corporation to give them the differential amounts of salary of the minimum wages admissible to them as per the policy decision formulated by the respondent Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation’). The petitioners further seek a direction to the Corporation to regularize their services. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit. 2. According to the writ petition, petitioner no.1 had started working for the Corporation on daily wages with effect from 31.5.88, and continues to function. Petitioner no.2 similarly started functioning on daily wages with effect from 2.7.82, and continues to work as such. The Corporation has formulated a policy decision on 6.6.2000 (Annexure C), whereby it is, inter alia, stated that those who were appointed till February 1990, shall be paid the minimum scale and dearness allowance. In that view of the matter, the Corporation is hereby directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for payment as - 2 - per the said policy decision dated 6.6.2000. In the event the Corporation comes to the conclusion that both the petitioners are covered by the policy decision, they shall be admitted to the minimum scale and dearness allowance. This Court will be pleased if the entire process including payment of the differential amounts of salary,if any, is completed within a period of three months from today. 3. In so far as the second aspect relating to regularization of services of the petitioners is concerned, we are relieved of the responsibility of examining this question in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), reported in (2006) 3 SCC 1. A Division Bench of this Court had the occasion to apply the same in Ram Tapeshwar Sah vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2006 (3) PLJR 376, with respect to similarly circumstanced employees who claimed to be working for various departments of the State Government. The Corporation is accordingly directed to constitute a Committee as per the procedure indicated in the two judgments, to consider the cases of the petitioners for the purpose of regularization, and dispose of their cases by reasoned orders. This Court will be pleased if this part of the process is completed within a period of six months. 4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ( S K Katriar ) mrl - 3 -