IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.31 of 2003 DEVENDRA PRASAD SINGH & ANR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 4/ 21/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. The appellants were daily wagers claiming regularization. The impugned judgement holds that they even fell outside the purview of the policy for regularization being appointees after the cut-off date. Additionally, the appointment was not in consonance with the law. Learned counsel for the appellant very fairly acknowledges that the appellants are not in service even as daily wagers. The question of regularization of one who is not in service simply does not arise as it is not a mode of appointment. To that extent there is no merit in the appeal calling for interference with the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. If there be any arrears of daily wages for periods that the appellants may have worked and they represent before the authorities, notwithstanding the dismissal of the present appeal, the respondents are obliged to pay them their wages in accordance with law for such dates that they have worked as otherwise the action of the respondents violates Article-23 of the 2 Constitution of India. If the appellants represent, let the latter part of the order be complied with by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.) (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)