IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9941 of 2006 BALMIKI THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 22.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. One fact is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Work Sarkar in the work charge establishment under Tube Well Division of Sitamarhi. Thereafter his services came to be transferred to what was known as Water Development Corporation. Some employees approached this Court in CWJC No. 3896 of 1990 for payment of salary and regularization. In compliance of the order passed in CWJC No. 3896 of 1990 the authority issued annexure-3 dated 3.1.92 by virtue of which large number of persons including the present petitioner were regularized but the notification showing the petitioner whose name figured at serial 13 was of a fitter. Petitioner raised objection that he should not be employed as a fitter in view of the fact that he was initially appointed as a Work Sarkar. Some corrections were made. Notifications are there but then it was undone by annexure-5 which became the cause of action for the petitioner to file the present writ application The stand of the State in the counter affidavit is that it is manufactured kind writ application which has been filed after so many years after enjoying the benefit for more than a decade and half. When the service of the petitioner was transferred to Water Development Corporation there was no post of Work - 2 - Sarkar available and therefore he had to be regularized on the available post and the corresponding post to that was a fitter. At the time of absorption of the petitioner the pay scale of fitter and Work Sarkar were the same. Since there was no post of Work Sarkar available under the regular establishment petitioner was adjusted against the sanctioned post of fitter under Bihar Water Development Corporation. In this background the Court think that now it is not permissible for the petitioner to demand change of the nomenclature different from the post when he was regularized. If the petitioner had serious objection he would have approached the Court when he was regularized on the post of fitter. The circumstances under which annexure-2 came to be issued and the corresponding modification contained in annexure-5 was notified, no case for giving any different nomenclature to the petitioner dose arise, as any kind of observation now in favour of the petitioner would be giving benefit of a post which was not in existence when petitioner was regularized. This writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)