IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.56 of 2009 LAKSHMAN MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 28-07-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner wants review of order dated 21-10-2008 whereby his writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 4503 of 2004 was dismissed after noticing a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Durganand Jha Vrs. The State of Bihar reported in 2007 (4) PLJR 259 and a Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vrs. Uma Devi reported in 2006(4) SCC The gist of the submission advanced on behalf of petitioner is that regularization of an employee engaged for a particular period in the work charge establishment in the permanent establishment is provided under policy decisions and rules existing from Pre- Constitutional Era and no new Rules have been framed by the State to replace those rules. According to learned counsel the contents of such old rules and provisions were not considered by the Full Bench in the case of Durganand Jha (supra ) and therefore a wrong conclusion was reached that work charge establishment has a separate entity and persons engaged in a work charge establishment must cease to be an employee no sooner the temporary work charge establishment comes to an end. The discussions made by the Full Bench in the aforesaid case of Durganand Jha discloses that judgments of the Apex Court were 2 considered and in paragraph-20 it was summarized that regularization of employees in regular establishments of Government cannot include the concept of regularization of employees whose appointments were casual, contractual or on daily wage basis because such a course would be in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. For that reliance was also placed upon the judgment in the case of Secretary of Karnataka (supra ). When the Full Bench has held that the regularization of employees of a work charged establishment in regular establishment will violate the principle of equality emanating from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, a pre-constitutional sub-ordinate legislation or rule cannot help the counter proposition that regularization be permitted in violation of Constitutional mandate. Hence, I find no merit in this review application. It is accordingly, dismissed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)