IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3907 of 1999 KRISHNA NAND AWASTHI, son of Late A. N. Awasthi, resident of Village: Rikabganj, P.O. Tekari, P.S. Tekari, District Gaya. …Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Purnea. 4. The Superintendent Engineer, Design Circle, Water Resources Department, Purnea. 5. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Purnea. …Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner …Mr. Gayanand Roy, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State Mr. A. A. G. III 9 2.7.2009. Heard Mr. Gayanand Roy learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The prayer in this writ application is to the following effect;- 1. That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions to the respondents for regularizing the services of the petitioner on the post of Telephone Attendant, a Class IV post as the petitioner had been working on the said post since 15.6.1987 i.e. from the date of his appointment on the said post as daily wages basis and further to direct the respondents not to remove the petitioner from service without assigning any reason, more so when the petitioner was working since 1987 on daily wages basis and also to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to serve the department on daily wages basis till his services are 2 regularized by the department and further to direct the respondents to pay equal pay for equal work as are being paid to the regular employees of the department and/or pass such order order(s), writ(s0 as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.” As a matter of fact, from the aforementioned prayer and the averments made in this writ application an impression would emerge that the petitioner was/is still continuing in service as on the date of filing of this writ application i.e. 22.4.1999. From the order dated 20.11.1998 (annexure-8), it would however, appear that the petitioner’s services had already been terminated after complying the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel for the petitioner in the changed circumstances would submit that annexure-8 should be quashed and his case for regularization should be considered. Counsel for the State on the other hand would submit that the rights of the petitioner, if any, was totally confined on the premises of his engagement and 3 since he was working 26 days in a month he would be deemed to be terminated on each day as daily wager employee. He would further submit that no right on the basis of such daily wages engagement can be enforced by the petitioner as with regard to regularization and in this context he would refer to judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi 2006(4) SCC 1. Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand would submit that annexure-8 in fact is a camouflage inasmuch as it has been mentioned therein that the services of the petitioner was not required and as such terminated. Such decision in the submissions of Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, after almost more than 12 years of continuous service of the petitioner is wholly illegal and impermissible inasmuch as from the counter-affidavit it would transpire that the actual reason for termination of service of the petitioner was a government decision seeking to terminate the services of each and every daily wage employee who 4 was engaged after 1.8.1985. In this context he would also refer to annexure-8 to the counter affidavit and also a decision of this Court in the case of Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2008(2) PLJR 681. In the considered opinion of this Court, when the Government has taken a decision to extend the period of ban on daily wager engagement from 1.8.1985 to 31.12.1993 in terms of decision dated 10th May 2005 and the writ application has remained pending before this Court for last 10 years, equity would demand that the case of this petitioner should be considered afresh in terms of the aforesaid judgment of this Court in Dhananjay Kumar Tiwari(Supra). That being so, this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the authority concerned who after looking into the ratio of aforementioned judgments in Dhananjai Kumar Tiwari (Supra) and Uma Devi (Supra) as also the facts of case of the petitioner and the policy decision of the 5 State Government would pass an appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application stands disposed of. Kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)