IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7746 of 2010 BAIJNATH PRASAD S/O RAM LAGN SAH R/O VILL.- KASERA TOLA, P.O.- PARASA BAZAR, P.S.- EKMA, DISTT.- CHHAPRA. ……………. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY DEPTT. OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER CUM ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CUM SPECIAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER SARAN ROAD CIRCLE, HAJIPUR, BIHAR 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ROAD DIVISION, GOPALGANJ 8. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER ROAD SUB DIVISION, HATHUA, GOPALGANJ. …………… RESPONDENTS ----------- FOR THE PETITIONER : MR.SANJAY KUMAR PANDEY, ADV. FOR THE RESPONDENTS: MR.P.K.VERMA,AAG-V WITH MR.S.R.SHARAN, A.C. TO AAG-V. ----------- 3. 24/02/2011 Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for regularization on the post of Road Roller Khalasi. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the resolution of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department contained in Memo No.639 dated 16.3.2006. The resolution has laid down some provisions for consideration of cases of 2 incumbents working on daily wages for their regularization. But the said resolution is not required to be considered by this Court in view of the letter of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department contained in letter no.851 dated 14.2.2008 produced by learned counsel for the State, which has clarified that the said memo no.639 dated 16.3.2006 has to be read along with Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and has to be acted upon in accordance with the parameters laid down by the Apex Court therein. This makes it clear that the case of only those incumbents have to be considered for regularization who had completed ten years of continuous service on daily wages etc. Even if the representation of the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-7 is accepted, it is his own case that he worked with the respondents on daily wages only between 1983 and 1986 i.e. for three years. This is much short of the minimum ten years laid down by the Constitution Bench for consideration of cases of the concerned incumbents. Clearly, the petitioner is not 3 eligible for consideration of his case for regular appointment from any angle. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)