IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.9369 OF 2007 PRAHLAD PANDEY, S/O PRAHLAD PANDEY, S/O RAMPUJAN PANDEY, R/O VILLAGE PATARIYAN, P.S AND DISTRICT JEHANABAD(GAYA). …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3.DIRECTOR, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4.SUPERINTENDENT, GOVT. AYURVEDIC COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, KADAMKUAN, PATNA. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 13.10.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner was initially engaged on daily wages in the month of May 1986 to work in the Government Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Kadamkuan, Patna and having been stopped from working since January 1987 has taken 20 years to realize that he had a subsisting claim for regularization of his service because his initial engagement on daily wages was made by appointment letter, whereas his dispensation of service in January 1987 was made without any office order served on him. In the considered opinion of this Court, once this fact becomes clear that the petitioner is not in service since 2 January 1987 and has taken 20 years only to move this Court for regularization of his service, the prayer must be rejected only on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay and laches. This Court, however, must take into account the remaining submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as with regard to the plea of discrimination in the matter of regularization of service. It has to be noted that no person said to have been regularized in service has been made party to this writ application nor any order to this effect has been enclosed which could show that the persons appointed after him in the same manner were subsequently regularized. As a matter of fact, when this court is even otherwise satisfied that the initial engagement of the petitioner on daily wages was without following the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India, this Court would find it difficult to issue a direction for regularizing the services of the petitioner merely because he had continued in service 3 for a little more period of seven months before being stopped working from January 1987. Recording all these reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)