IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10969 of 2010 1. Radhye Shyam Sharma, son of Late Bhuneshwar Sharma, resident of Village Madhopur, P.O. Dhibra, P.S. Phulwarisariff, District Patna, A/P Saran Nahar Division (Gandak Project, Siwan) as Choukidar. 2. Baleshwar Prasad, son of Late Sakal Mahto, At Present resident of Dhari, P.O. Dhari, Police Station Pipra (Punpun), District Patna A/P working in Water Drainage Division, Chhapra as a Choukidar. 3. Mahesh Kumar Singh, son of Late Suryabansi Singh, resident of Village Akabarpur, P.O. Sorangpur, P.S. Naubatpur, District Patna, A/P working in Water Drainage Division, Chhapra…………………………………………………………..Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Siwan. 4. The Superintendent Engineer, Saran Nahar Anchal, Siwan. 5. The Superintendent Engineer, Drainage Circle, Siwan. 6. The Executive Engineer, Saran Nahar Division, Siwan. 7. The Executive Engineer, Water Drainage Division, Chhapra………………………………….Respondents. ----------- 2 09.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State. Petitioners claim that they were appointed on daily wages some time in 1979. Thereafter they have been working in the Department continuously till today and they were paid regular scale also. However, they were not treated as regular 2 employees of the Department on account of which benefits of regular employees i.e. increment, leave encashment, casual leave, medical leave and earned leave etc. were not granted to the petitioners. In the circumstances, petitioners have filed this writ application with a direction to the respondents to treat them and give such benefits admissible to regular employees as per Bihar Service Code. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that the petitioners are not regular employees and they are not entitled to those benefits. If the petitioners are continuing in service with the respondents since 1979, it is high time that the respondents must decide the status of petitioners and as to whether they are fit to be taken in regular establishment by the Government or not as regular employees. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) reported in 2006 (2) PLJR 363 (SC), has clearly laid down the law 3 and, as one time measure has directed all concerned authorities to consider regularization of such employees who are continuing with them for more than ten years. Petitioners also deserve to be considered as one time measure for their regularization in terms of the observations of the Apex Court made in paragraph 44 of the judgment. Petitioners have also filed their representations for the purpose, copies whereof are Annexure-5 series. In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider representations of the petitioners and take a final decision in the matter of regularization of their services within the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in paragraph 44 of the judgment, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)