IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.724 of 2009 Krishna Kumar Vishwakarma &Ors . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3. 12.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The writ application filed on 15.1.2009 questions the orders dated 19.8.2002 and 2.9.2002, reverting the petitioners individually in accordance with their respective dates to the post of a daily wager, pending consideration of their case for regular appointment. It is not in controversy that the petitioners were initially appointed on daily wages in between the years 1980 to 1982. They were then brought into the work charged establishment on 7.1.1988 and 1.2.1988. By the impugned orders they were reverted to the status of daily wagers. The petitioners came to this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 6534 of 2002 which was disposed with directions referring the mater to a three man committee. The Committee has recommended their regularization against vacant sanctioned posts on 29.11.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prospective regularization is bad 2 and in fact their reversion to the post of daily wager was itself not in accordance with law. Reliance was sought to be placed on certain Government instructions dated 27.3.1987 with regard to regularization of work charged employees to claim that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit there under from due dates. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the question of regularization unless and until sanctioned vacant posts are not available does not arise. No sooner that the posts were made available regularization has been done. If an order of regularization has been passed in favour of the petitioners on 29.11.2006, the petitioners cannot accept the benefit of the regularization for three long years and then question it in a writ application filed in the year 2009. If they were aggrieved of the regularization, they should have either joined under protest or should have moved the Court with utmost alertness no sooner that the order of regularization was passed. They cannot have enjoyed the benefit of the regularization and yet simultaneously at their convenience question the very same order. Either their regularization was in accordance with law or it 3 was not. By their conduct, enjoying the benefit of the regularization without questioning the same, they are deemed to have accepted the order in its entirety. In (2010) 10 SCC 165 (Shyam Telelink Limited v. Union of India ) the principle of approbate and reprobate has been explained at Paragraph-22 as follows:- “22. Although the appellant had sought waiver of the liquidated damages yet upon rejection of that request it had made the payment of the amount demanded which signified a clear acceptance on its part of the obligation to pay. If the appellant proposed to continue with its challenge to demand, nothing prevented it from taking recourse to appropriate proceedings and taking the adjudication process to its logical conclusion before exercising its option. Far from doing so, the appellant gave up the plea of waiver and deposited the amount which clearly indicates acceptance on its part of its liability to pay especially when it was only upon such payment that it could be permitted to avail of the migration package. Allowing the appellant at this stage to question the demand raised under the migration package would amount to permitting the appellant to accept what was favourable to it and reject what was not. The appellant cannot approbate and reprobate.” It is trite law that delay in service matters is extremely vital. Any consideration of the claims of 4 the petitioners for regularization from an earlier date based on any instructions with regard to work charged employees etc. is bound to create severe turbulence in service specially with regard to those who may have acquired their own seniority ahead of the petitioners sanguine of the belief that the petitioners has also accepted their regularization from the subsequent date and have not challenged it in due time. The petitioners have therefore rightly not challenged their order of regularization dated 29.11.2006 and do not seek quashing of the same. So long as that order stands unquestioned, the issue of any retrospective regularization, not permissible in law, simply does not arise. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)