IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17445 of 2009 1. PARMOD KUMAR JHA S/O LATE MAHESH JHA R/O VILL- ARARIA, BARWA KHUR, P.S- KUNDWA, CHANPUR, DISTT- EAST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MADHUBANI 3. THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT MADHUBANI 4. THE DISTRICT SUPRINTENDENT OF ENGINEER DISTT- MADHUBANI 5. THE S.D.O. JHANJHARPUR, DISTT- MADHUBANI 6. THE B.D.O. JHANJHARPUR, DISTT- MADHUBANI 7. THE C.O JHANJHARPUR, DISTT- MADHUBANI 8. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, DISTT- MADHUBANI 9. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION SUB-DIVISION JHANJHARPUR, DISTT- MADHUBANI ----------- 2. 19.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. On the own showing of the petitioner his appointment was on daily wages. Any period that he may have factually worked on as a daily wager inclusive of the period 21.1.1982 to 30.9.1996 alleged in the writ petition, he is entitled to daily wage in accordance with law as otherwise Article 23 of the Constitution stands violated. If the petitioner represents for the same, the authorities are required to verify from their records whether the petitioner had worked or not without insisting upon the petitioner producing 2 such evidence when nonetheless if any evidence is produced by the petitioner, the authorities shall be obliged to consider the same also and dispose off his claim for arrears of daily wages within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The second submission is for regularization from that of a daily wager. It is submitted that persons who were appointed along with the petitioner on daily wages have been regularized prior to the judgment delivered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors (2006)4 SCC 1. A daily wager holds no post and is not entitled to regularization notwithstanding the fact that in the exigency of work he may have continued for some period of time stands well settled by repeated judicial pronouncement. Regularization is not a mode of appointment. It is equally stands settled by judicial pronouncement that even mere completion of 240 days does not vest a right to claim regularization by itself. The judgment in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) at Paragraph 54 holds as follows:- “54. It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to 3 the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.” If the petitioner is aggrieved by discrimination caused between him and those who have been regularized prior to the judgment of Uma Devi (Supra), the discrimination having been caused by judicial order, he is left remediless. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ex-employees Association & Ors Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. reported in A.I.R. 1995 at Paragraph 8 of the judgment has held as follows:- “8. …………the discrimination was due to the judicial determination and not due to the acts of the respondents………………” The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)